Talk:Celts/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Germans do not equal Celts

The Volcae were one of the Celtic peoples that for two centuries barred the southward expansion of the Germanic tribes in what is now central Germany on the line of the Harz mountains and into Saxony and Silesia.[citation needed].

Citation needed please. Where doe the Hartz Mountains of Lower Saxony and Silesia come into history as being connected with Celts. Proof please.

Read a book. McCunliffe's Celtic World (ISBN 0-90-471640-4)is a good place to start. Gabhala 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont quote Celtic authors who juts conform with your fantasies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk • contribs)

I can't say for certain, but I think you mean Barry Cunliffe's Celtic World. (I don't have it so can't check the quote). If so, however, Sir Barry is hardly a Celtic Author... he is Professor of European Prehistory at the University of Oxford and one of the foremost experts on the European Iron Age. Even so, like and respect the man as I do, his theories are not completely agreed upon, and there should probably be a note to that effect within the article. That aside, the people of Hallstatt and Saltzberg are frequently referred to as 'Celtic' in the archaeological literature (see P. Brun cited below, and others). Point is, while it is hardly a verifiable fact that the peoples of Germany should be considered 'Celtic' it is a common enough hypothesis in the archaeological world that it should be cited and noted. --Tle585 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct, it is Barry Cunliffe. If I had reached over and slid it from its place on the bookshelf before typing, I would not have gotten the author's name wrong. Gabhala 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that Barry Cunliffe shoudl be excluded as a source because he is not a "celtic author" is absurd! He is a valid and authoritative source on these matters rather than an author having a preset bias based on their own orgins. While Hallstatt and La Tene are referrred to as Celtic phases, this is mostly because their cultural features spread to the European Celtic fringe where they stayed as relict examples of those cultures. This is different from saying the actual people of Hallstatt and La Tene were Celts. In defining Celts we come across linguistic, cultural and even genetic indicators and these cause some confusion over the actual meaning of "Celtic". This article should avoid stating such uncertain aspects as facts. --Attatatta (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Germans - or Allemand - were not 'celts'. Increasingly this article seems to have been written by fantasists - and appears to have racial overtones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.136 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Celts in Gaul

Quote:

The Romans arrived in the Rhone valley in the second century BC and found that a large part of Gaul was Celtic speaking

Who said the Gauls spoke Celtic. What is Celtic as a langauge? Citation please.

Duh! See Celtic language. FilipeS 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont quote more of your fantasy bull articles at me. Come out with some real evidence. No you cannot. Because you know I know that CELT is a made up word. Means NOTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk • contribs)

Caeser referred to the Gauls as Celts, at least, that is how it is normally translated into English. Celt is not really a made up word, it is the Anglicization of the Greek word Keltoi. The Romans (note Caesar in Gallic Wars and Ammianus Marcellinus {as cited in Ellis (1995) Celtic Women.) clearly associated the Galli as the same people as the Keltoi, and Caesar even stated it in no uncertain terms (see elsewhere on this page). Similarly Strabo refers to the Keltoi/Galli in his Geographies. To this end, the term Celt is frequently used in archaeology to describe many of the Iron Age inhabitants of Europe, though the exact delineation of where the Celts begin and end is a matter of much debate. Technically speaking, there can be little doubt that the inhabitants of much of present day France were the same peoples that the Classical sources refer to as Keltoi/Galli and as such can fairly safely be called Celts. The inhabitants of Iron Age Britain is another matter, though both artefactually and linguistically there is a good argument to be made that they are part of the same cultural grouping. There is little doubt that they probably would not have thought of themselves as a single people, any more than say, Native Americans ever thought of themselves as a single people until after the European invasion. Regardless, there is a certain expediency in using a single term to refer to a cultural grouping when discussing the prehistoric past. Iron Age Peoples of Western Europe is a mouth full and gets boring to type after a while. For additional sources to those listed above, see Cunliff, B. (1997) The Ancient Celts. London; and (1992) The Celtic World. London.; Brun, P. (1987) Princes et Princesses de la Celtique: le Premiere age du Fer en Europe (850 - 450 av. JC). Paris., and Carr G. and Stoddart S. (2002) Celts from Antiquity: Antiquity Papers 2. Cambridge... which gives a very good summary of the debate about Celticism within archaeology. --Tle585 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We know that there were three "nations" in Gaul at the time of Caesar. In Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" he states that Gaul was made of 3 separate people, the Aquitani in the South(who were Basque) the Celts or Gauls in the middle south of the Seine/Marne and the Belgae North of the Seine/Marne (Who were germanic and in no way Celtic). This can be taken as fact as it was Caesar's job to know the geography language and culture of the lands he conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.98.9 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Celtic people are people who spoke a Celtic language, and most people seem to think the Belgae spoke a form of Celtic, so I don't see how anyone can say they were 'in no way Celtic'.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I have given a specific example(above) of the fact that the Belgae were Germanic as quoted by Caesar in his book, The Gallic Wars. Please state your own counter example. Your phrase "Most people think" is not scientific and is merely conjecture. Most people can be wrong. Specific example please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.87.26 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not mere conjecture, it's what historians and linguists say. You seem not to have done any research other than reading Caesar. I'd already started a new section with references when you asked this, so please respond there. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your suggestion is pure conjecture. Caesar are the other Roman sources are very clear on the matter. What is true is that it is neither certain nor establshed that the Belgae spoke a Celtic language the article shoudl recognise this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attatatta (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a term that most people use. If we used a different term it would make the article confusing. I understand that "Celtic" is misused, but if you look at the history of most of our words, they're all misused compared to how they used to be. This is just a modern term for a broad group of people which may not be related. There's really nothing we can do to change the way the vast majority of people use it, so let's not add to the confusion.---G.T.N. (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely we have to use it the way WP:reliable sources use it? Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that when historic sources talk of "Celts" they are referring to the language they speak. The element that most defines a people is the language they speak. Celtic is a family of languages with the same root, as is Germanic a separate family of languages. When one hears someone speak, one tends to automatically label them based on that language. --92.4.40.107 (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Gauls were a Germanic tribe of people. They used a wash to make their hair appear blond. The Romans hated fighting them as they were so much taller than the Legionnaires who were short and often fought on one bended knee.The Gauls used their natural hieght advantage to bear donw on the Romans in battle. To call the Gauls 'celts' is a complete fabrication. Still - please carry on with your fantasies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.136 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Wow. I hadn't looked at this in a long time. It's a mess. I started on the cleanup, but we need massive footnoting, and I'm thinking we shouldn't launch right in to all possible definitions of terms. Some of that is needed up front, of course, but right now it's really tedious for anyone outside the field, imho. Not to dumb it down or cut that stuff, but I'm thinking a bit of rearranging might serve readability. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The other main problem I'm seeing is redundancy. We cover some things about three times, in different sections. We'll need to make some decisions about where to cut the repetitions. I'd say in those cases we need a brief mention in the intro to the article or section, then more detail in the specific section. Argh. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

REMOVAL of CORNWALL and Isle of Man references

The Isle of Man and Cornwall are NOT Celtic natiuons. Abuse of Wikipedia. Complete Bullcrap.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk • contribs)

Calm down and take a look at Manx language and Cornish language.--Celtus 04:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down - I am not 'up' - yet. Celtus you have a Nordic / Celtic Flag on your personal page. What does that mean. Celts were not Vikings ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk • contribs)

You are simply mistaken, Cornwall and the Isle of Man are considered to be Celtic nations by everyone but you it would seem. And as for Celtus' Nordic/Celtic Flag I assume that is because he is of both Celtic and Teutonic ancestory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.102.200 (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the real problem here is in the use of the indistinct term "nations." The article and Celtus seem to mean "people group," whereas the complainant and many readers may be confused with the modern use of the term to mean "political state under a single government." This confusion is worsened because Ireland is a nation and Wales and Scotland are at least countries within the United Kingdom. Of course, Brittany isn't a nation either, though that objection was not made. And no one who was concerned with the modern political map bothered to mention the Ulster Irish who are not part of the modern "nation" of Ireland and in fact belong to two different ancestrally Celtic people groups (the Scots and the Irish). When all is said and done, perhaps a better wording in this ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY would be to describe these as Celtic-speaking regions, rather than nations. There is also a Euro-centric bias here if we are really worried about discussing modern Celts. There are several major identifiable Celtic groups in the New World as a result of migrations since the 17th century, including Irish in major U.S. cities like Boston, Scots-Irish (or Ulster Irish) in several major groups including Western Pennsylvania and the Southern Piedmont, Scottish highlanders in the Cape Fear Valley, and pockets of Welsh in various communities planted by Quakers during the American colonial era. I'm not really advocating a mention of these at this point, but pointing to the absurdity of this entire discussion. American Celts probably vastly outnumber the tiny Celtic populations of Europe. A better aim of this section of the article would be to stick to historic references and neutral geographical terms to describe the locations of historically Celtic-speaking peoples.Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

There has been a considerable amount of trolling on this page recently, people. It's easy to spot and best ignored. Just revert trolling changes to the main article silently as you would any other form of vandalism. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For those of us not familiar with the term "trolling," can you explain what you mean and what the proper etiquette in Wikipedia is for handling it? I think I know, but I'd like some clarification. Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity in the Overview section

I have re-inserted the reference to Christianity in Ireland, since Christianity came to Ireland and Britain by different routes (in Britain it was introduced largely through direct Roman influence - which never happened in Ireland) Gabhala 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a little tricky because Christianity was introduced in different parts of Britain at different times and then was reintroduced at a later date. Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty / Child abuse again

The Pederasts are persistant, the Roman pederasty quote came up yet again, without any context, claiming that Celts liked to sleep with little boys. I really don't want to get into a huge battle over this all over again, but I'm not going to leave this in without any of the considerable evidence that this was not the case in any Celtic society we know of. (see the previous discussion for details on that)

If it keeps coming back, it should be a direct quote and sourced, no paraphrasing, and I will be adding the other evidence for balance, sourced and directly quoted. Leaving it in as - is would be like putting in some comment from Cromwell about sexual practices of the Irish, without any other evidence, or by Philip II of Spain about the English, or by Custer about Native Americans.Drifter bob 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]

It seems like such a minor issue, and so open to contention. Why would anyone even bother bringing it up? Strange...Jakob37 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment pops up on account of (some) Glasgow Rangers fans habit of associating Celtic with Glasgow Celtic, and the awful episode of Jim Torbett abusing some of the youth players at Glasgow Celtic some time ago, and perhaps a looser association of Celtic/ Irish communites and the Roman Catholic church.

Hateful, ignorant trolling, pure and simple.

J S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.99.77 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Serious need of Revision

I hate to be a pain, and I see that alot of people have put alot of work in here, but I can't even get passed the Overview without finding some pretty innaccurate statements. First off, to note that Celts had a Polytheistic religion is to limit the definition to a pre and early historic sets of people, which the entire rest of the article, including the overview, goes on to contradict. To that end, to note that the Celts originated from anywhere is extremely POV, and to be honest, a bit of an archaic idea within Iron Age Studies (see Cunliff,B. 1997,The Ancient Celts London; Collis, J. 1984, The European Iron Age. London; Evans, T. , 2004, "Quantified Identities: A Statistical Summary and Analysis of Iron Age Cemeteries in North Eastern France 600-130 BC" Oxford and countless others books on the topic. Truth be told, no one who studies the Iron Age really thinks of anything like a "Celtic Homeland" anymore, and haven't for decades. --24.21.45.224 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of these statements may or may not be correct ... but what is certain is that they need citations to demonstrate that an authority has made them rather than simply being OR or POV of an editor. Abtract 10:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you referring to my comments above or the article? My comments above include three fully cited references. I could readily provde more if that is really felt to be needed. --24.21.45.224 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments concerned unreferenced statements only. Abtract 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I'm being dim... article or this commentary? --24.21.45.224 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted ... and naturally I was referring to the article; I would not be so impolite as to ask for citations for talk page comments. Abtract 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought as much. Your argument was far too cordial and well put forward. I only questioned I have noted some less than professional or polite commentary on Wikipedia, not a little of which seems to be on this page. --Tle585 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (same user as before, but having bother to sing in.

Going back to the original complaint, the discussion of a "Celtic homeland" is only dead in the sense of a prehistoric homeland for the collective people thought of as "Celts" during the historic and modern eras. That's because we've come to realize that not all historically attested speakers of Celtic languages are descendants of the original Proto-Celtic speakers. Nevertheless, the idea of a geographically limited place were Proto-Celtic was once spoken is almost a linguistic necessity, like the earlier Proto-Indo-European homeland. People need to be more precise in the terms being bandied about in this article. There is considerable anachronism that is at best sloppy and confusing but at worst hints of hidden agendas.Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that while I enjoy reading this page, there is an overemphasis with attributing La Tene and Halstat origins to the Celts. All we know of La Tene and Halstat artefacts is that they were adopted by a wide range of tribes in Central and Western Europe, as was bronze. There is not a shred of evidence that only "Celtic speakers" used them. The whole La Tene and Halstat idea of a Celtic homeland came about via Herodotus misidentifying the source of the Danube, which he thought was at Pyrea..by the Pyranees. That was where he believed the Celts were located. The Source of the Danube is in fact approximately where La Tene etc originated. I think we should stick with facts. The only factual proof we have of Celtic origins is via written records, and they are only found in Western Europe..not Central. La Tene and Halstat could be a big red herring when trying to locate Celtic origins, which I think are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.191.166 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I notice that American spelling is used for this article. Bearing in mind that the Celts were a European race and the so called Celtic nations are within the British Isles ... and I guess most editors of this article are likely to be European (maybe not?) ... would it not make more sense to adopt British spelling? No big deal either way, just a thought. Comments? Abtract 08:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BE should probably be used. Gazh 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've learned that it's not generally a good idea to change the default spelling on an article if it's long established even when a good argument can be made for changing it. Wikipedia's basic policy is to let sleeping dogs lie. For the consequences of waking them up take a look at the Gasoline talk page archives, or for an even sillier example, the Yoghurt talk page archives -- which, I am sad to say, I started with the best of intentions but no idea of the nightmare ahead. Changing spelling can lead to a huge amount of time and effort wasted for little or no real benefit. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point ... so I checked through the article and it seems to use british spelling mainly. I have therefore made one change to give some consistency,Abtract 12:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of any particular spelling conventions in this article, but how would British English be more appropriate than American English? AE is a European language. There is no barrier to comprehension between those who speak BE and AE, There is a fair amount of Celtic scholarship coming out of the United States and the plurality of (insular) Celtic descendants are located in North America. If American English is not European, then Gaelic is not Celtic. -darodalaf Darodalaf (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A project for a load of made up mythical tripe that makes most historians turn in their grave at the thought of it all is about right for this deluded part of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.82.99.205 (talk) 13:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

First off, I will refer the above user to Wikipedia's rules regarding civil conduct. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, arguments regarding the Celts may well exist, but Celts and celticism are still considered an important part of academic discussion. An enormous number of academics study the ancient Celts, and unless you want to discount the importantance of individuals such as Sir Barry Cunliffe (Prof. European Archaeology, University of Oxford) and Lord Renfrew (ret. Prof. of Archaeology, University of Cambridge), Hatt and Roualet, Flouest, Rozoy, Kruta, the clear majority of French Iron Age specialists, and God knows how many others, it is clearly a topic worthy of study. --Tle585 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-Organization and Revision of this Article

While it is clear that a lot of work, and a lot of debate has gone into this article, as it stands, it seems extremely disjointed and includes a large number of unreferenced citations. I would like to suggest that in order to improve the article, that we begin by restructuring it.

I don’t think that at the moment, anyone is overly happy with it, so I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest a road to improvement. I would love commentary on it, and hardly think it is THE ANSWER, I just would like to put it forward as a suggestion. That having been said:

My thoughts

One of the greatest problems with the article, and with the debates going on here, is that we have been attempting to define Celt and Celtic with a single definition, while in truth it has more than one. I would therefore suggest the following headings be added, and the topic divided between them.

I) Celts – Overview (obviously) – the overall definition of the term Celt an Celtic, including reference to the Classical term, the modern usage of the phrase, the fact it is frequently used as a catch all phrase to describe the Iron Age inhabitants of NW Europe (and reference to the debates about that), Its use for modern populations and its Linguistics to describe language groups. None of this has to be in that order/

II) Classical Usage of the Term Celt – a brief overview which notes the identification by historic sources such as Livy, Strabo, Caesar, et al, but not going into too much detail on Caesar as that he will likely be applied in greater detail to the Gauls.

III) Celts as Identified through Linguistics – This is, in fact, the core nature of much of the debate as to whether or not Celts existed as discussed on the Talk pages. Celtic Languages are clearly identified, and studied, and have an article of their own. Here all that needs to be done is a reference made to that, and the commentary that the modern usage of the term Celt, comes from the linguistic identification of similar language roots for Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, etc. and the identification of P vs. Q Celtic. It may, however, also be worth noting that the difference between P and Q Celtic might be tied to the difference between the Hallstatt and La Tène exchange networks (if anyone can find the reference for that idea).

IV) Ancient Celts – a discussion of the archaeological evidence and proto-historic classical descriptions (such as Strabo, Poseidenus, etc.) of Iron Age populations. Starting with a notation that the term Celt is highly debated in archaeological circles as to its use within the field, all the same it is frequently used to define the pre-and-proto-historic peoples of North-western Europe. While there is little of no debate in the use of the phrase to describe France and those areas of Celto-Iberia, its application to the Prehistoric peoples of the British archipelago and areas of modern Germany is more controversial. Then a general summing up of the Cunliffe vs. Collis argument.

Having said that, we could then go on to discuss the links between the Hallstatt Culture and La Tène populations, and the arguments for and against the existence of Insular Celts.

V) Modern Celts – here we get to discuss the Celtic Nationalist movements.

Much of this material exists which the present pages, it just need to be organized a bit better, cleaned up and given real citations. --Tle585 13:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your breakdown, though the topic is (very) probably much more complex. The fact that "Celts" by one definition or another have existed for over 4000 years means that various readers will have various ideas as to what is meant by the term - drawing from a different period of history or cultural development. For example, the term "Celts" as applied to those who lived in Roman times, means something quite different compared to the "Celts" who were contemporary with the Vikings, and again something very different when applied to modern times. This, obviously, as we have seen, leads to rampant misinterpretation and misunderstandings. This should be dealt with as early in the article, and as thoroughly as is possible. Perhaps some kind of "Timeline of the Celts"? I don't know how that would work, though. Gabhala 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the topic is more complex, indeed, it is more complex than can truly be dealt with by any encyclopedic article. As for the idea of a timeline, as you say, that is very difficult. Prior to the late 18th Century, nobody really thought of themselves as being a Celt, at least there is no record of it. The Romans and Greeks defined the people of Gaul as 'celts' but much like modern historic references to 'Native Americans,' that seems to have meant little to the people themselves. If we try to define the Celts by timeline, I fear getting bogged down in the debates that seem to continually rage. Also, I would have no idea as to what period to begin the Celts with. Thus the idea of breaking it down by general topic... maybe with more cross-referencing (aka... the Hallstatt Period, La Tene, Celtic Languages,Gaul, Ireland,Wales etc). Just my two cents however. Happy to be convinced of a timeline if you (or anyone else) can put forward a good one. --Tle585 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even personally convinced that a timeline would work - there are too many historical, cultural and geographical factors - it's just an idea. At any given time, "Western Celts", "Northern Celts", "Eastern Celts", and "Southern Celts" all would have had different influences playing on them (from which other historical cultures may or may not be derived) and conversely, they would have had an effect on these same neighbouring cultures, blurring the lines. Logically the most isolated will absorb changes slower - but mass migrations obviously change this. It's the same today. Twenty years ago, Europe was firmly divided into Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Nowadays, most of what was then Eastern Europe (and "oh, so different") is part of the EU, and - oh, look - not so different. In short, it's down to where the line is drawn - because it's never black and white - even today. As an aside - I would really like to see a project page going on this. Gabhala 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

General concepts of regional Celticism do have some fairly serious problems. While Cunliffe has put forward arguments in favor of an Atlantic Fringe culture (that we might as well call Celts for lack of anything better), this is certainly not agreed upon within the archaeologial world. Mind you, Moscati et al, in their rather fantastic work The Celts, do a very good job of showing at least some form of cultural relations between the people of NW to Central Europe during the Hallstatt and La Tene. Is it enough to call them a single ethnic identity? Good question. They clearly didn't think of themselves that way. Oh dear... I digress... but you get the point. I think if we want to keep objective about this, we should really seperate the modern concept of celts from the historic and the archaeological. All three are very different. --Tle585 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the 5 sections. However what really needs to come across is that there was a culture or group of cultures, which the Greeks called Keltoi, and the romans and themselves called Gauls. Which included people in France, Switzerland, Northern Italy and a small part of Turkey, but not Britain or Ireland. The term pretty much disappeared after abour 0CE so to talk of Celts being contemporaneous with Vikings makes no sense at all. The re-emergence of the term, and our current view of the Celts is, as you say, from much later. Got to go out, but I'll think on this and post again later. --86.146.194.32 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though a mention of the shared elements of material culture (artefactualy similar styles, use of vehicles of broadly similar design, etc) should be mentioned. Indeed, one might think that a quick overview of the use of the term Celt within archaeology might be worthwhile. The old school thoughts of how great migrations explained the spread of cultural material, and how that helped to lead to modern ideas of Celtic nationalist. Then emphasizing that though clearly migrations occurred, if we believe the historic sources at least, it is now generally accepted that spread of La Tene and Hallstatt cultures was primarily due to extensive exchange networks (citing Cunliffe, Colis, Moscati et al., Frankenstein and Rolands, Hatt and Rouelet, etc.) Then mentioning that this in turn has led to debates as to the meaning of Celt within modern archaeology, and the question as to whether or not the cultural boundaries of the material culture can be said to reflect the cultural boundaries of ethnic identity. --Tle585 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way forward. It would provide the reader with the information that they are used to, i.e. our modern view of Celt and then go further into the subject with a discussion of the problems. So where from here? --Dumbo1 14:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would like to suggest we start by editing from the beginning, that is to say, starting with the overview, followed by a very brief history of the usage of the term Celt in the English language, noting how it has become divided in its exact meaning based upon the different studies and purposes that have used it, after that we might be able to tackle the subsection. I note that some of this has already begun (not by me however). Much of what is here is still very usable, but I think needs to be organized a bit better. I will wait at least a week before doing so, however, since I want to know feedback and have no desire to make unilateral decisions. If there is objection, I will happily work towards consensus. --Tle585 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Various personal opinions on the best way forward for the article

A lot of effort has gone into this article, but it is still full of fantasy and psuedo-historical nonsense. If you "think" you know something about the Celts, don't correct the article. Too many people have added and taken away because of what they think they know. Its like people believing that the Romans thought the earth was flat, and Christopher Columbus proved it was spherical. In reality the Romans knew the earth was spherical and had a pretty accurate measurement of it from the Greeks, whereas Columbus thought it was pear-shaped and smaller than it really is. The modern use of the term Celt, and its connotations, come from the 17th and 18th century scholars who noticed similarities between goidelic and brythonic. From that more "parcelling up" of ideas occured. Then the celtic revival took hold. The reality is that people from Ireland would not and did not associate themselves with gauls from France, and definitely would not have understood each other. At no time did ancient historians call people in Britain or Ireland: Celts. From the archaeology and more recent DNA research it looks more and more likely that the people living in the UK are mainly related to people have been there since the neolithic, and that large scale migrations almost certainly didn't occur. Instead there was probably long term, small migrations, i.e. small numbers of people from Spain moved to S.W. Britain and S. Ireland over long periods, people from what is now Holland, Belgium and N France moved into SE England over long periods of time. And there was almost certainly a reciprocal movement back again. Another problem with the DNA research is that people have continued these movements over the last 2000 years or so. What one person will label as Anglo-saxon DNA may in fact be Viking or Flemish. Ancient groups were CULTURAL groups, not isolated groups with their own seperate DNA pools with specific markers. The celts have been romaticised to the extent that you see people writing on this page: The Gallicians are the purest Celtic Nation! This article should be split with a well researched Archaeological/Historical section and another about how people identify themselves as being celtic and what that means to them. The two really are unrelated in most ways, apart from the name. So lets get over it. If the romans said that the Ancient Celts were pedarasts, who cares! Its got nothing to do with how people see themselves now. Think of Sparta, people love to think that they have something of the Spartan in them. In reality that would have meant living in a society where violence was a norm and pedarasty was institutional.

SO BEFORE EDITING THIS ARTICLE, THINK, DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? (Don't change things because that's what you were taught at school, or read in a book written 50 years ago.) Current archaeology and history are discovering that a lot of our pre-held ideas are wrong. Let the experts tell the story, read and understand. Be amazed at how wrong we got it. Just because you think Ireland and Scotland are Celtic, doesn't mean that they are. The Romans never thought that they were, and they were the ones using the term. --86.146.194.32 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit harsh, but certainly not unfair. I would be interested to know what your view of dividing it between linguistic, nationalist, and archaeological/historic would be. Also, I would argue that it would be important to note that some people view that the pre/protohistoric Irish and Britons were Celts, but that it is a modern definition of a general population and not a true ethnic identity. Views? --Tle585 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here, again, there seems to be a slip towards thinking of the Celts as a race of people. This is the biggest misconception that must be dispelled. Celticism was a cultural phenonomon - language, lifestyle, technology, religion. Obviously there would have been regional variations, dialects, etc. Genetic markers cannot be used to track cultural similarities.

As for the Romans not refering to the Irish and British as Celts, the Roman concept of Celtica had practically vanished under Caesar, who subdivided it primarily into "Gaul" and "Germania", among others. Until some ninety years after Caesar, the Romans only had any real contact with a handful of tribes in the south-eastern corner of Britain. By this time, the Romans had stopped thinking of a Celtica, preferring to use the more precise subdivisions as established by Caesar. The fact that the Romans had stopped using the term by the time they had explored to the fringes of "Celtic" Europe does not negate any connections which may have existed prior to that. Gabhala 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, when I was using the term ethnic, I did not mean it in a genetic decent kind of form, but more in the social identity form of the word. That having been said, to my knowledge there is no evidence at all pointing to suggest that any sense of Celtica among the Romans that included Germania. I could be wrong, after all my own area of knowledge does precede the Roman encrouchment, but I would very much like to see the citation (this is not meant in any kind of sarcastic way... I really do mean that I would like to see the citation). I know that Strabo (and thus probably Posiedenus) do differentiate between the Celts and the Germans... but then again Strabo has the Danube flowing across the whole of Europe. Indeed, the only real area that can probably be described as definitively Celtic through the histories are the Gauls (including the Gaul, Belgae, Cisalpine Gaul and Celto-Iberia. Archaeologically one can certainly make a solid argument that Austria can be included in that, but as for Britain and Ireland, it really is a matter of considerable debate.

As for shared culture, well there is great similarity in certain aspects of the material culture, and certainly linguistic arguments can be made, but there is no solid evidence to support a shared Religion existing. Even the pre-Roman burial practices were substantially different. In say 300 BC the standard burial rites throughout most of France included individuals buried in an extended position on their backs (Evans, 2004, Quantified Identities has a summarized description of this that is well referenced), while the people of Britain were generally buried on their sides in a crouched position. (see Cunliffe's Iron Age Britain book cited elsewhere). Personally I think there is strong enough evidence to support some form of cultural tie between these populations, but that is only a theory, and one that is debated fairly hotly. It needs to be mentioned, but cannot be put forward as fact. --Tle585 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether you can call the people of ancient Britain and Ireland "Celts" depends only on how you define the word "Celts". If you define "Celts" as "speakers of a Celtic language" then yes they were. If you define "Celts" as people referred to by that name in classical literature, then no they weren't. I think those who insist there were no Celts in Britain or Ireland define the word too narrowly. As for the new evidence of genetics showing that the arrival of the Celtic languages wasn't associated with any large-scale population replacement, linguists and archaeologists have been saying that for decades. There is no archaeological evidence of population replacement, and we know languages can spread in other ways. It's only those who haven't read anything written about the Celts since about the 1930s who find it surprising that most of our genes come from the neolithic population. Finally, as for "no solid evidence to support a shared Religion existing", I think the attestation of druids in Gaul, Britain and Ireland is reasonably solid. --Nicknack009 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict, since Nicknack posted while I was typing this, which is a response to Tle585's post above.

I will try to find a direct citation for my assertion that Caesar divided Celtica into Gaul and Germania. I am certain I got the notion from Cunliffe's The Celtic World, since despite being only one of literally a dozen or more books on things Celtic that I own, it is the only one I consider in any way reliable as a source.

You are quite right as to the cultural Celticity of Ireland. However, I think that the fact that the Roman commentators of the times of the conquest of Brittania record meeting the same tribal names as they had met in Gaul and Belgae - e.g. the Parisii, the Iceni, the Dumnonii. Though the Irish identified themselves as Gaels, very likely cognate with Gauls (bearing in mind that Gauls is a Romanisation of whatever these people called themselves, just as Gael is somewhat anglicised) as well as the Gal- root evidenced in Galatia and Galicia.

When we talk of what can or cannot be put forward as fact, we need to consider that we are talking about a topic that begins in either pre- or proto- history, and was "interrupted" by the Dark Ages, and about which the people themselves recorded precious little, due to an extremely limited application of written language. This is notwithstanding Wikipedia's own rules on Reliable Sources, etc.

Not that it is in itself proof of Irish Celticity, I would like to raise the point that in academic circles, as much as in the article itself, most of what is "known" about the Celts is taken from Irish sources and extrapolated to other Celtic regions. I am aware that this does not prove that the Irish were Celts, but it certainly does mean that the general view of the Celts has been historically painted with an Irish brush.

As for religion, though there are certainly regional differences, there are a significant number of deities which are found in different regions of Celtic Europe. Lugh is mentioned in surviving Irish and Welsh mythologies, and gave his name to Lyons in France. The river-goddess (mother?) Danu gave her name to multiple rivers running into the Black Sea - most significantly the Danube, but including the Dneister and Dnieper, and yet features strongly in Irish mythology.

In short, that there is a connection between the undeniably ancient culture of Ireland and some ancient mainland European culture is certain - but the question is whether this shared culture falls into the definition of Celtic - as Nicknack says above, it's all down to the definition of "Celtic".Gabhala 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Gabhala, but "Gael" isn't related to "Gaul" - the similarity is a coincidence. "Gael" derives from Old Irish goídel, which itself possibly derives from Welsh gwyddel. But you are right that similar population group names occur all over - there were Brigantes in Britain and Ireland, and Brigantii in Gaul, for example. --Nicknack009 09:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that theory seems to be based on the misconception that the 'd' in goídel is a hard 'd', as in English. In fact, it is more likely to have been an aspirate, pronounced closer to a soft 'y'. The Welsh gwyddel is more likely to be related to Gaelic gabhail, since gwydell is a derogatory term for "pirates" or "raiders", and gabhail as a verb means to "capture", "conquer", "raid". Perhaps it was an ancient Welsh pun. It is very unlikely that a population would take to refering to themselves and their language collectively by a derogatory term from another language. But we're getting off track here. Gabhala 17:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

However the 'd' was pronounced (and in Old Irish it was probably pronounced like a voiced 'th'), there is still a consonant between the 'g' and the 'l'. The tendency is for words to lose syllables over time, not gain them, so a classical 'g-l' is unlikely to become a medieval 'g-dh/y-l'. --Nicknack009 19:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All of this seems to go a long way to illustrate that we need to divide this article into sections. Any academic study has unique definitions of words that don't translate well when taken outside of them. In Archaeology there are major debates regarding what is a Celt, and yet those are very different from the debates within Linguistics.

As and aside, personally, I am of a view that supports Cunliffe's interpretation that you can refer to much of the Atlantic Fringe as being related to a cultural grouping that we might as well refer to as Celts as being correct. Since their is archaeological and lignuistic evidence to suggest similarities and cultural interaction, we might as well call them Celt. That having been said, I will still note that we must balance such a view with that put forward by JD Hill, John Collis and many others that what you have is closer to cultural seriation, thus making the term Celt more of less useless. Arguments in favor of Druids existing in both places, and similar tribal names can be put down to the tendency for Romans to refer to cultural aspects in terms of those they were already familiar with (thus Zeus is really Ra, or Celts refer to themselves as all being decended from Hercules). Again, this is not my interpretation, but it is the prevalent one in archaeology today. This becomes even more problematic when we turn to the historic periods in these regions. Can a culture that has been subjected to Roman domination and assimilation for hundreds of years be said to be the same as the one that predated it? Quite possibly so, but it is difficult to confirm that. To that end, since the article is a place to summarize, and not debate, we should probably keep it fairly simple and as such divide it. In fact, one might suggest that one should add a history of the use of the term Celt into the article, which in the end could well be the most useful definition of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tle585 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into a long protracted debate on the pronounciation of goídel, or more accurately goídhel - take a look at http://www.utm.edu/departments/english/everett/496pron.htm or http://w3.lincolnu.edu/~focal/docs/irishsp.htm. Also the word "Gaul" was not of Celtic origin - it was the closest Roman stab at the Celtic word. How many syllables were lost in going from Baile an Atha in Irish to Ballina in English? Gabhala 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I promised a citation to support my assertion, above, that the concept of Celtica became obsolete under Caesar, and it was indeed from Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, ISBN 0-09-471640-4, pp. 141:

"The Germanic tribes shared many elements of culture and religion with the Celts...It is quite possible that the Germani were originally a Celtic tribe living in the region beyond the Rhine. Indeed the author Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing at the end of the first century BC but using older source material, says of Celtica that that part of it beyond the Rhine was called Germania. From Caesar's time onward, any tribe from across the Rhine was called German regardless of ethnic origins"

Perhaps not exactly what I said, nor is it the passage I remember reading, but the essence stands. Gabhala 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to revisit my statement, above, regarding the Celticity of the Irish. A little digging has revealed that Ptolemy recorded tribal names in Ireland that also occurred in Britain and in Gaul (Brigantes, Coriondi(?), Dumnonii, Gangani in both Ireland and Britain; Monaig, Menapii, (and apparently, Belgae) in Ireland and Gaul). See also Avienus and Pytheas of Massalia.

All this is cluttering up this page - let's take it to my talk page. Gabhala 23:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concern

I read about a statement that concerned me greatly: There seems to be a slip towards thinking of the Celts as a race of people. This is the biggest misconception that must be dispelled... That would be a great statement to make is we were writing an essay on the subject, which we are not. In Wikipedia we describe all significant viewpoints what that have been published on verifiable sources about the subject, nothing more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but please don't take my statement out of context. I meant that relying on DNA evidence to prove or disprove a population's "Celticity" would be an error. This in no way invalidates the findings of such studies, but there is no genetic marker for modern "American" or "European". The "melting pot" is not a modern phenonomon - it's just happening on a bigger scale.

The aim, I believe, of the discussion above is to determine the best way forward for this article. To this end, it would seem that deciding on a definition of "Celts" is the best place to start, and quite simply DNA is not the place to start. My point, strange as it might seem, was almost identical to yours, regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Perhaps I phrased my original point badly. I did not mean to imply that DNA studies should be ignored, just that (as stated above, in the full statement) their relevance to a cultural phenomenon is questionable. Genetics have little to do wth cultural identity, particularly when that identity is applied externally. I did not intend to imply that genetic studies of so-called modern Celtic populations should not be included.

There has been a significant amount of "trolling" on this page recently (to which, I admit, I have been guilty of responding), where it was implied that the Celts never existed, since no racial evidence existed for such a race. My statement may have been tainted by this.

So, quite frankly, if we were to take race as our criteria for the article, it's never going to go much beyond a stub echoing the OED definition.Gabhala 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and apologies for my obvious misunderstanding of your argument. I agree with you that race should not be the driving motif for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot take the Celts to be a race. ANY evidence of ANY existance is extremely thin. It was merely a 'possible' culture trait. The nearest people to a 'Celtic' type people are 'probably' the Basques. Irish Gaels for example are most definitely not Celtic. Antor32 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have cleaned up this section according to WP:EL. Wikipedia appears to have in place a programme going in the policy to encourage placement of detailed academic information into articles--right good--rather than tacking them on to article link sections. Whilst understandable that one would wish to pack link sections as numerous, they do come to appear overly busy. To facilitate placement of material from the links into the article, I am making this post and pointing to them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celts&diff=155361725&oldid=155357527 Cryptographic hash 06:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Celts worse than Anglo-Saxons?

Is it maybe true that "Celts" came to Britain and Ireland and murdered and killed many Indiginous peoples? also forced language and culture upon them in very evil way? YESYESandmanygoals 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it was Santa Claus. We will never know. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Lurker (said · done) 10:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Was asking that maybe it be added for article ? Or discussed about maybe adding. Derk Ross this is silly talk YESYESandmanygoals 12:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't say, <grin>... -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't add information on this because no good evidence exists about the advent and spread of Celtic languages in the British isles. Paul B 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that the original Celtic invaders of Britain killed lots of indigenous people, but the point is, as Paul B says, we have so little information about that period that it would be pure speculation. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. Still, if you find a reputable academic who says something of the sort, you could always include something about them. garik 18:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably will never happen, but would love to find a source of that garik, would leave bad taste in hypocritical modern "Celt" mouth i think - to know what they complain of, they did it worse to the REAL people of this islands, not fake plastic invader Celt. Anyway, i will keep searching for source but will probably have no fruit. YESYESandmanygoals 11:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating the article getting into this, which I think is too peripheral for this article. However, saying that it's unknowable is not really accurate. There is considerable evidence to be deduced from archeology and genetics, as well as other fields. At the very least, the genetic evidence favors the introduction of Celtic language and culture by a relatively small number of people from the continent after a non-Celtic-speaking group had already populated the British Isles, with that non-Celtic group being biologically ancestral to the historic Celtic speakers, who in turn are biologically ancestral to the great bulk of the English-speaking peoples as well as the modern Celtic speakers. So the evidence may be too scant for a definitive answer, but the general picture that emerges is not of a violent bloody conquest by either the Celts of the indigenes or the Anglo-Saxons of the Celts. A reasonable historical evaluation that some have made in the latter case is that the perception of Anglo-Saxon violence was particularly great to the Romano-Celtic establishment including the wealthy, ruling officials, and those connected with the Church. The common person might have experienced far less violence. A similar parallel could be true of the Celtic arrival. The Anglo-Saxon incursion has left a much greater genetic imprint on the population than any Celtic arrival. It might be reasonable to deduce that those who brought Celtic language and culture to the British Isles were very small in number initially. Anyway, I'd say there is plenty of room for intelligent discussion of this evidence, but it doesn't belong in the article. Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ftjrwrites, then i would asking, where of would it be best to discuss this matters? YESYESandmanygoals (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No where on Wikipedia that I know of, wikipedia is not for discussions. I'd also like to add because it apparently has not been mentioned, according to Celtic tradition this is quite true, in the Book of Invasions the Celts were the last of many invaders of Ireland, before them came peoples and species that may be mythological and some that developed into Gods (the sidhe of the Tuatha de Danaan). Also, the Picts, who may of not been the original inhabitants (I seem to recall theres a possibility of them coming from Norway or so) were displaced and assimilated by Celtic Raiders (the Scoti, ie the Scots). But using terms like evil is rather one sided and irresponsible, they did actions to best suit the needs of their peoples and theirs beliefs, just as all people do. A homeless or starving people are rarely a selfless people, both sides are usually worthy of pity.

• I agree with the above comment, Wikipedia is not racist.

Sioraf (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BC/AD Edits in Notable Celtic Women

Does anybody have any reference on Chiomaca and Queen Teuta? As far as I can tell, the original BC timeframe was correct. Gabhala 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This part of the article was originally added by User:Jossi who gives pp 89-90 of "The Celts: a History" by Peter Beresford Ellis, ISBN 0-786-71211-2, as a reference. So I would imagine that that is where he got the information from. However I know that the BC dates were wrong for Boudica and Cartimandua at any rate, so they may well be wrong for the two women you mention as well. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, our article on Chiomaca certainly says BC and so does our article on Teuta. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from Smith's Dictionary and Polybius 21.38) the spelling should be Chiomara (and her husband is Ortiagon, not Ortagion). Half the "notable Celtic women" listed are purely legendary, so I've removed them. Camma was, I believe, a historical figure written about by Plutarch, but the article Camma refers to a Breton hunting goddess, with no references. Work to do. This is what you get when encyclopedia articles are written from popular primers and dodgy websites rather than proper sources. --Nicknack009 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that the "women" section of the Celts template is completely out of place, and I've removed that too. --Nicknack009 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed Chiomara, with reference to Plutarch (whence the Polybius fragment) and Valerius Maximus. There's no reference in either to the Tolistoboii, so I've removed that from this article. --Nicknack009 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

can we do this at a List of Celts (or better, List of Gauls, List of Britons etc.)? This article is crowded enough without such lists. dab (𒁳) 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling

I'm not an editor and I don't really have the time to do this, sorry, but this article is full of really badly written stuff. Inaccuracies aside, half the sentences make no literal sense. I'm just pointing this out in the hope that someone'll be able to do something about it. This isn't a US English/British English thing, it's just crap. 195.195.237.10 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone with editor rights correct the misspelling of "substantial" as "substancial" - it occurs three times in the article, twice in "substancially" and once in "substancial". Thanks...

I've started on the cleanup

Some of what I've done may look brutal. But this article is a mess. I've removed a lot of the dubious stuff that's been waiting on citations for months (or longer). However, I have removed some of the flags on what seem to be to be rather odd, POV calls for citations on completely uncontroversial statements. I've put a "more sources" flag up top to note that sources are still needed on most of this. Please, if I mistakenly removed something important, re-add it, but source it and make sure you're not duplicating something that's already covered elsewhere in the article. One of the reasons I'm cutting so much is we have layers and layers of redundancy here. OK, back to the cleanup... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Kathryn. You've done a great job. I'm always wary of the "genetic evidence" and "archaeological evidence" sections in particular, which seem to attract a lot of bunk (frequently from the same user). This article has long been in need of a good once-over.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off new Names of the Celts article

• Support - Though I'm not sure Names of the Celts is the best title, I agree that this article is too long and it would be best to split off some of the content. Might as well start with that section. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - There is plenty of material that can be split off; this subject in particular is worthy of further exploration in its own article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty Yet AGAIN

I can see the Pedophiles are very persistant here as they so often are in Wikipedia. Several months (or maybe a yeaar) ago the Athaneus quote was removed from this entry after a long discussion. The Athenaus quote at that time was the single entry in the section of 'Celtic Family Life', as if pederasty was the sole activity of a Celtic family. People including myself objected to it because it was extremely misleading being presented without any balance, and balancing evidence was inserted. Subsequently the Athaneus quote and the other references were all removed. Now that everyone has forgotten about the whole thing this quote was re-inserted, I noticed it by accident, just as I did the first time.

The Romans and Greeks have a well established track record for making what they considered disparaging claims about the Celts in particular which have subsequently proven to be baseless. Accusatoins of pedophillia were a favorite Roman tactic of political slander, they were used accurately or otherwise against Julius Caesar and Tiberius.

On this particular issue, there is actually also considerable evidence of an anti-homosexual bias in Celtic culture, for example in Brehon law it is cited as grounds for divorce. Unlike in every other culture which actively practiced pederasty / pedophillia, there is no mention of pederasty in Celtic legends or the literature which came out of it, and only negative references in surviving Celtic law.

Last time this came up many of these points were added to balance the Athaneus quote, and all were subsequently dropped. Now it's been snuck back in again. The Athaneus quote claiming Celts preferred boys is not going to stand all by itself as if it's the last word on Celtic sexuality - any more than it was the last word on Celtic 'family life'. It's far from it. I'd rather not open this article up into a big debate of the role of homosexuality in pre-Christian Northern Europe primarily because I don't tink there is a great deal of definiitive evidence for it either way, but if this Pederasty thing remains I'm going to put back referenced links which will more than balance that claim. I believe it's been re-inserted by the persistant NAMBLA crowd online who try to slip this kind of thing into every Wikipedia article they can, it has more to do with modern politics than ancient history and I do not think this is the place for it.

Drifter bob (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've done a good job balancing it out. Thanks! I would like to see a source for classical writers slandering their enemies with accusations of pederasty, however, as well as dates for the Brehon laws as opposed to the classical quotes. I would not object to removing the section entirely, as there are no primary sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One direct primary source for that (among others) is Seutoneous the 12 Ceasars, the sections on Julius and Tiberious respectively, as well as on Nero and Caligula. We'll see how this pans out, last time there was at least one benefit, the quote about the sexual freedom of women was something I dug up during the last big debate, which was apparently left in the article, as it well should be it's quite relevant to understanding Celtic society. Drifter bob (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why would pederasty be a "slander" for the Romans? Wasn't their culture O.K. with it? Aren't we perhaps looking at all this through eyeglasses too colored by modern preconceptions and sensitivities? FilipeS (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This clearly offends Bob's personal sensitivities in some way. Referring to the concept of "paedophilia" in the context of the ancient world is almost meaningless. Ancient authors did criticised people who were supposed to be unable to restrict or restrain their desires, but that was part of a discourse tied to the ideal of self-control and decorum, quite different from the modern discourse of sexuality tied to ideas of "normal" and "abnormal" desire. The Celts were stereotyped as wild, vibrant etc, in both nagative and positive ways. An unrestrained sexuality is part of that stereotype but I know of no author on ancient models of sexuality who would see it as a "slanderous" accusation of "paedophilia". I think Bob is projecting his own assumptions onto the ancient world. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly unfamiliar with Roman history and politics, pedophilia (child-love is all that means) was very much considered disreputable in Rome and was most definitely used as slander, just as passive homosexuality was, even though it was common then just as it does today. The declining popularity of Tiberius was directly related to his little harem of children at Capri. When you speak of 'the ancient world' as if it were a monolithic entity you are being rather amitious, the Romans were actually quite prudish generally speaking especially during the Republic and the early days of the Empire. You may want to do some research before making personal attacks. -- said Drifter bob who didn't sign

Yes, they may well be described as "prudish" in some senses, but only in some. You are clearly unfamiliar with the decorations of Pompeii. That's the point, what comes under the category of "prudish" to us does not map onto ancient models (and yes, I am using "ancient world" loosely here, of course), as you tacitly admit when you make a distinction between passive and active homosexual acts. Prudishness is not a "monolithic entity", to repeat your phrase, and "paedophilia" does not simply mean "child love" any more than hysteria means womb disease. Etymology does not determine meaning. Using the term paedophilia essentially introduces a modern concept which is very misleadingly deployed. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And when you couple that with the Roman dislike for the Celts (the Roman state never forgot the events of 387 BC), it's not difficult to deduce that whether true or false, these were not expressions of Roman admiration for the Celts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a non sequitor: because the Romans were pissed at the Celts for invading them, everything they said about them must be specifically intended to be derogatory. You know very well, or you should, that Roman attitudes to "barbarian" cultures were often ambivalent. There is a lot of interesting literature on this, for example Benjamin Isaac's book on the invention of racism in classical antiquity. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is pedophilia the same as pederasty, or are we mixing apples with oranges? FilipeS (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob is blurring the two rather problematically. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think we need to remember that homosexuality, which is what was initially mentioned in passing in this article, is not the same as pederasty or pedophilia. Someone came and changed that brief mention of homosexual relationships between warriors to a section on "pederasty", which is placing undue weight on that part of the history. Granted, when people only lived into their thirties or forties, if that (warriors didn't live long), as long as someone was post-pubescent, I believe they were seen as an adult. Relationships we would see as inappropriate now were not seen in the same light then. We do have mythological sources (Niall Frossach, Cú and Ferdiad, Brighid and Darludagh(sp?)) for strong bonds of love between same gender couples, and the lesbian relationship in Niall Frossach is definitely sexual (described as "playful mating" in the text, resulting in accidental pregnancy because one of the women had been with a man shortly beforehand). I don't believe the Brehon laws condemn homosexuality, inasmuch as say that homosexual affairs on the part of your spouse are as valid a reason for divorce as are heterosexual ones. It's the adultery that's the issue, not the gender, imho. Anything we add in on any of this must be well-sourced. I haven't had time to type up the refs I have, but plan on doing it eventually. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These are good points. Anyone want to step up and fix the article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a user called "Haiduc" who has a particular preoccupation with pederasty, and tries to promote it on any and every page he can. However, having said that, it is widely accepted that pederasty (as opposed to homsexuality as such) had a particular signifcance in ancient cultures and was linked to models of masculinity. Of course the Greeks are the best documented case of this, and its difficult to extrapolate from Greek to other ancient cultures. It's not simply about lifespan. Foucault discusses this in detail in the first volume of the History of Sexuality. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As i pointed out last time this came up (which was what led me to put in the cassius dio quote about the sexual freedom of women in Celtic society) every society I have ever heard of with a documented history of widespread pederasty or pedophillia whichever you prefer was also a society in which womens sexuality was tightly controlled, usually including strict betrothal marriages and some kind of cloistering or segregation of women, such as in ancient Greece, Japan in a certain era, and many Islamic countries in various eras. Class or institutional hierarchy play a big role too generally Pederasty is often a relationship between the powerful and powerless. If you are talking about post-pubescent relationships incidentally I would not generally see that as pederasty in a historical context. Be interesting to look into Haiduc a bit more closely I think incidentally if that is at all possible.Drifter bob (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny that "you would not see it" as pederasty "in a historical context", since that's precisely what the ancient Greeks themselves called it. They did invent the word, after all. FilipeS (talk)

I'm sorry if my comment in that regard offended you somehow ?, I merely meant that with age-differentiated sexual relations such as are meant by Pedophillia / Pederasty today, there is a gray area as the younger participant gets older and the older participant gets younger particularly in a historical context. Since girls were married at the age of thirteen over much of the world for most of history, and because the definition of a child and adult was different in the age of much shorter life spans and much harsher lives. A thirteen or fourteen year old boy may be a warrior in many Iron Age societies, that certainly seems to have been the case in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. And you may remember we are discussing the Celts here not the Greeks. There is sometimes homosexuality between equals within all-male warrior societies for example which could have existed among the Celts (among the Gaestae for example), but there is no evidence the Celts practiced Pederasty as an educational system as the Greeks did. At least not that I've seen any evidence of to date, other than the highly questionable Athaneus quote. Drifter bob (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not find your comments offensive, I found them inaccurate. Incidentally, pederasty is not an "educational system". FilipeS (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny you say that, the source used in one of the very dubious quotes in the section we are discussing here was from a book called "Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece". That is reference number 40 in case you have any trouble finding it. It is a fact that for a long time in Greece educating boys was closely tied to sexually using them. The Romans actually complained about this in some documents because it was common for a period to send Roman boys to be educated in Greece or by Greeks living in or near Rome. Some people today who are very interested in rationalizing pedophillia like to try to bring this up as a positive thing and insert it into all kinds of wikipedia history pages to make it seem like it was a universal practice. The point I was making is that there is zero evidence that there was a link between 'pederasty and pedagogy' among the Celts, what took place in Greece is being conflated here as being a universal practice. Drifter bob (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But why are you trying to make that point? Who ever claimed there was a a link between pederasty and pedagogy among the Celts?! FilipeS 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to spell it out? First of all the title of the reference that I already pointed out is precisely about this link according to the title of the book, or did you miss that? Second of all, the primary sources referenced in this article are Greek sources. This is one of the principle contexts in which pederasty took place in Greece. The Greek authors who were quoted are suggesting the same thing took place in Celtic society, so I was pointing out that there is no evidence that this context existed among the Celts, just as there also was no evidence of the cloistering or segregation and social control of women which also existed in every society with a documented history of pederasty. Is that clear enough?

I'd also like to learn what was "inaccurate" in what I wrote, I addressed the points you raised. Drifter bob 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Greeks mention it is the evidence. FilipeS 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I used the word evidence above in reference to the context of social conditions in which one finds pedophillia, including the Greek pederasty / pedagogy link. There is no evidence of this among the Celts. Mentioned by the Greeks or otherwise. You seem to be making a circle in your argument Filipe. Drifter bob 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. Please explain better. What is it you feel is wrong with the article, and how do you propose to correct it? FilipeS 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

People are playing games to support various agendas on this subject. But a better question might be whether this is really relevant and significant enough to be part of this article. I'd say no one has come close to making a case for any of these various erotic phenomena as being characteristic of Celtic society (possibly present within, but so what?). As such, it doesn't belong in the article.Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's pretty marginal. I'd rather see the whole section go than have misleading statements about slanderous "accusations" of "paedophilia" and OR attempts to connect comments on Julius Caesar to the Celts (in fact JC was mostly criticised for his a womanising). The idea that homosexual acts were of especial significance in Celtic culture is poorly supported. Paul B (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ftkjwrites comment here. The bottom line is there isn't a lot of evidence about the Celts attitude toward pedophillia. The last time this came up, the pederasty claims were put in in a very unbalanced way (they consisted of the entire section on 'Celtic Faimly Life') I put in sourced evidence to the contrary, and ultimately the whole thing was removed. I was looking up something about female warriors when I noticed the quote claiming that the Celts enjoyed sex with children had been re-inserted into this article. I didn't have time to dive into a huge research project, but I felt this was really unbalanced. I put in the comments about the Romans documented use of political slander to balance this statement. And Paul whether you like it or not Julius Caesar was indeed accused of passive homosexuality as political slander early in his career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_caesar#Political_rivals_and_rumours_of_homosexual_activity

again this was only added to demonstrate that the Romans used such accusations as political slander, because of claims to the contrary you yourself made in this very discussion.

I don't have any agenda with any of this, I'm not some kind of zealot. I edit Wikipedia history articles sometimes in interest of improving historical accuracy, you can check my edit history. Over the years I've noticed these pedophillia claims being inserted in historical articles, which seem to have more to do with modern politics than historical fact. On this Celtic article I intervened last year and again recently, because I believe it is historically inaccurate and in fact being used to push this agenda. I would really like to find out more about this guy who keeps inserting this stuff.

My personal opinion is that the Celts probably had the same range of sexual practices as we do today, but as Ftkjwrites put it, I don't think anything stands out as being characteristic of Celtic society, if you can even posit such a thing in so general a way.Drifter bob (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Look, this fixation with "paedophilia" is entirely yours. It is not the same thing as pederasty (have you ever heard of Hugh Hefner being called a "pederast" because he is serviced by women 40 years younger than him? Heterosexual "pederasty"" is considered to be normal male sexuality). And no one as denied that JC was criticised for supposedly politically damaging relationships with men, but he was, as I said, far more commonly criticised for his womanising. Judging by the story that his own soldiers are supposed to have sung songs about his alleged relationship with Nicomedes it hardly seems that homosexual acts were thought to be especially shocking. Paul B (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A very old, decrepit Hugh Hefner having sex with young ADULT women may be distasteful but is not the same thing as Greeks having sex with pre-pubescent boys under their tutelage, which is precisely what is implied by the Athanaeus quote. Or are you arguing otherwise? As far as I know the women hanging around the Playboy Mansion are of age, or mr. Hefner would be going to jail. Pedophillia is defined as a penchant for sex with pre-pubsescent children, pederasty means the same usually specifically with a boy as a passive recipient of anal intercourse. Look it up for yourself. The only difference seems to be between both genders or just one, is that what you are taking issue with? Why you have a problem with one word but not the other is frankly beyond me, but don't try to pretend I've got some kind of "fixation", you are the one with the issue here. As for the Legionnaires and their songs, if you think anything sexual would shock a veteran soldier you are not very familiar with military life, you should read some modern military cadences, such as jodie songs. All this is irrelevant though, you have chosen to turn this into a personal attack for some reason which is not the purpose of this page. I've said my piece, hopefully the article will be corrected. Drifter bob (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again! Who said anything about PREpubescent boys? Jeez! FilipeS (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Adolescent, or pre-pubescent, the point is it's a boy, as opposed to a man, wherever you think they drew the line in those days - pederasty means something other than sex between adults, therefore it's pedophilia. Historically YOUNG boys were used in this way, not deep voiced, bearded teenagers. You are splitting hairs and being completely disingenuous - and this is all way off the point.

Where is the evidence that the Celts actually practiced pederasty in any significant way other than one very isolated Greek claim? You might as well define the Irish based on a comment from a Victorian English broadsheet, it's ridiculous. Where is the evidence which would merit putting this in as a characteristic which stands out about the Celts? Is everything every single Greek wrote qualify as 'evidence'? Herodotus said there were ants the size of dogs in India, is that in the Wikipedia page on India? Drifter bob (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't dismiss sources arbitrarily just because you don't like what they say. FilipeS (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor can you cherry pick a source and place it in an article without context (placing undue weight on one source), simply because it seems to support an agenda that you do like, which was obviously what was done here, twice.

If an English MP claims that the Potato famine happend because the Irish sold their food to buy arms for rebellion, should we put that in by itself? If Julius Caesar said the Celts worshiped Mercury should we enter that as the sole source on Celtic religious practice? The first time I noticed it, this quote on pederasty was the single entry on 'Celtic Family Life', this time around it was the single entry on 'Celtic Homosexuality' as if a claim by one comment by a Greek in the Roman Empire in the 3rd Century AD was literally the last word. The comments about the Romans use of propaganda and on Brehon Law listing pederasty as grounds for divorce balance this somewhat. Drifter bob (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten way off base. To try and get back on track, I don't see why we need a section on a subject with so little evidence. However, the line about the Greeks and Romans using accusations of homosexuality and pedophilia as slander is original research. Do any secondary sources say Athenaeus and Aristotle, who lived 600 years apart, are using the claims as slander? I would rather see the section go, or be merged into a section on general sexuality, but if it must stay all that needs to be said is that there is very limited evidence for Celtic views on homosexuality, except for a few stray quotes from classical authors who said, without claiming firsthand knowledge, that it was accepted. Then we can mention the Brehon law. That seems to be all we can say without getting into speculation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd want to see a direct source for that Aristotle quote other than that book on Pederasty. Drifter bob (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's given: Politics II 1269b.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Drifter bob, Wikipedia articles aren't written by the Socratic method. If you don't like the referenced material as you find it, you are free to go to a library and dig up alternative viewpoints. What you should not do is indulging in random bickering on talkpages until people are annoyed enough to do your job for you. I see nothing wrong with the homosexuality discussion as it stands: it is stuck away under "Society" and it isn't drawn out too much. It shouldn't be any longer (or might ideally be trimmed slightly), but there is nothing wrong with reporting on such sources as we have. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Celtic sexual norms

Bob says "pederasty means something other than sex between adults, therefore it's pedophilia." This is, frankly, utter rubbish. The concept of paedophilia as we understand it did not really exist in the ancient world because there was no concept of a definite age of consent (see Criticism of Muhammad: Aisha for a well known heterosexual example - Muhammad's consumation of his marriage to Aisha at the age of nine). I have looked up some literature on this. H. D. Rankin's book Celts and the Classical World discusses this issue on pages 55 and 78. He talks about what Aristotle says and adds that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus. It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity" (p.55). At no point does Rankin ever suggest that these views were in any way slanderous or represented anti-Celtic propaganda. He does suggest that they may be refer to some sort of "male bonding ritual" related to abstention from women, but presents that as pure speculation on his part. On page 78 Rankin discusses Poseidonius, who said that Celtic women are beautiful but that the men pay little attention to them. Men sleep together and "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused" (Diod 5:32) In other words there seems to be quite a lot of evidence to support the view that homosexual relations were part of Celtic culture. Now Bob can believe that thse are vile calumnies if he wishes and an insult to his Celtic forebears, but unless he can find another Professor comparable to Rankin his opinion is simply OR. Frankly, I think it is ridiculous to be insulted by sexual mores in cultures that have absolutely no connection to our own, whether we perceive ourselves to be "Celtic" or not.

I fail to see the relevance of the Brehon law. A law recorded in medieval Christian Ireland has absolutely no relevance to the practices of pagan peoples hundreds of miles away and hundreds of years earlier on the continent of Europe.

I am going to add Rankin's summary of the evidence, which seems sufficient to suggest that homosexuality is a significant issue in the extant literature on ancient Celtic life.Paul B (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Brehon Law quote is every bit as relevant as the Athaneus quote which is also from well after the existence of the societies in question and from an at least equally biased culture. He may be referring to comments made by earlier authors but we do not know through what lens he is doing so any more than we know how much Brehon Law was changed from pre-christian Irish law. In both cases they are later reflections of earlier times. There is no basis for removing it. This is pushing POV. As for the Romans there IS evidence that the Romans A) made numerous propaganda claims against the Celts which proved to be incorrect (this is very well known in the archeological community in particular) and B) used accusations of homosexuality as propaganda as in the case of Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Nero and Caligula. There is absolutely no denying either FACT.

As for whether the Celts practiced homosexuality, it is very likely that they did as did every other group of humans in the history of the world, but the article as it stands presents an image which is heavily slanted toward the concept that homosexuality was a universal practice, though the emphasis on pedophilia seems to have finally been removed. The scenario as it's currently presented however is extremely unlikely, the opinion of one professor regardless of his purported standing does not trump primary sources any more than does your or my opinion. The removal of the Brehon law quote is ridiculous in this case, it is a primary source every bit as relevant as Athaneus, and there are a variety of well known reasons to assume that early Christian Ireland was not nearly as far removed from pagan Ireland as in other Christian societies. It has apparently become a deeply personal issue for Paul and the article will evidentaly remain slanted until a large number of primary sources are found to balance it. I really didn't want to have to make the major effort this will require but I feel that the article as it currently stands is ridiculously slanted. I'll take the time to visit the library this week and get several books and periodicals with primary source and archeological data and if necessary I'll scan documents and put them online. I'll also go revisit the discussion from the last time this all came up as numerous other sources were found then by a variety of people participating in that discussion, the Brehon law is actually only the tip of the iceburg.

I really didn't want a big political fight about this to happen in this entry as I think it is unhelpful in the long run and always preferential for a Wikipedia page not to be overly contentious or politicised (and I really don't understand why it is being done in this case), but it seems that the people who have the political agenda to promote their own preferred concept of history will not allow a reasonable discussion of the issue. I believe this page will end up reflecting unhistorical data on the Celts if it stands as-is. I think most people who know better are afraid to edit whern such contraversial claims are put into Wiki articles out of fear of the kind of personal attacks we have already seen in this discussion, which is why they remain. Whoever feels strongest about the issue seems to be able to slant the evidence to suit their agenda, as is apparently the case with pedophillia related issues all across Wikipedia.

We will get to the bottom of this and find out what the evidence actually says about this issue, perhaps it will be helpfully clarified. If I'm wrong and the image presented by Paul here is accurate, than having that information in the article will be a good thing, and there will be more solid evidence for it. Either way we will find out.

In the meantime I am formally requesting that the Brehon Law reference be returned to the article for balance.Drifter bob (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Katheine has already pointed out how you misrepresented the Brehon law, and your misrepresentation of the facts regarding Roman view of sexuality has also been discussed. As I recall, the only reference to paedoplilia was added by you. And no, you are wrong about sources. Authorititive secondary sources do trump primary sources on Wikipedia. See WP:RS. Not that this matters, since the primary sources all contradict you. Paul B (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Katherine didn't say I misrepresented anything, but I think she can speak for herself. The fact is there is no valid reason for removing the Brehon law reference from this seciton, (other than the fact that you don't like it) or the other edits you did. But trust me, there will be new references you can attempt to discredit to your hearts content. As for the your 'authoritative' secondary source trumping primary sources, you would clearly like to imply that this one professors interpretation is literally the last word, but I think you will find out that he is not. Drifter bob (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We could stand to chill out a bit. I think the Brehon Law could be included, as long as it's put in the appropriate context (when and where it applied, that is, medieval Ireland). However, the mention of Romans using accusations of pedophilia can only be used if you have a secondary source saying such accusations were used to slander the Celts, or at least that these particular writers were known to be particularly slanderous. Otherwise, it's original research. On the other hand, the section is now weighted heavily towards Celtic views on homosexuality, despite the dearth evidence. There is much more evidence for their views on male-female relations; this should be covered more extensively in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets try again.

"Slander"
1. Many of the writers who comment on Celtic sexual practices are Greek, not Roman, so any insults Roman politicians may traded with one another are really rather irrelevant.
2. In any case I really can’t see much evidence that Roman writers did use suggestions of homosexual behaviour as “slander”. Suetonius has a habit of commenting on the alleged sexual shenanigans of various emperors, but I see no reason to believe that these are “slanders”. He simply says what they were supposed to have done, involving both ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ relationships, without implying that one is more shocking than another. Do we say that comments on Caesar’s relationship with Cleopatra were slander? Hardly. He’s pretty hostile to Claudius, so if he wanted to “slander” anyone, he’d be a prime candidate, but he simply makes the non-judgemental statement that he had great lust for women, but not for men. That’s all.
3. The comments recorded in ancient writings are not critical in tone, so there seems to be no reason to identify them as slander. The passage from Athenaeus (which is linked below) is simply a description of various cultures in which male-male sex is accepted. He doesn’t say “and this disgraceful practice is found among these primitive groups…” or anything like that, so the context simply does not support the claim that attempts to slander is involved.

"Brehon law"
The Brehon law concerns reasons for divorce on he grounds that the wife is not being adequately provided with sex. I guess this is more about successful reproduction than female satisfaction, but the essential point is that no distinction is made between physical incapacity (due to impotence or obesity), or lack of interest (due to homosexual preference, or preference for other women). There is nothing in the law to suggest disapproval of homosexual behaviour as such. So Bob's original claim that it constitutes "considerable evidence of an anti-homosexual bias in Celtic culture" is without foundation, as far as I can see (and as Kathryn has already pointed out). Furthermore, the Irish were clearly not the "Celts" referred to by the classical authors, who do not use that term for British and Irish tribes. Simply adding a reference to this, as though it somehow contradicts what the classical writers say, would be very very misleading. I'm not wholly oppossed to adding it if it is put in context, but it still seems to me to be a total red-herring, which unduly confuses matters.

male-female relations
I haven't cut out a word on this. I just moved text around so that material on female leaders and warriors appears in the next section and material specifically on sex appears in the Sexual Mores section. In fact there is now rather less text on homosexuality that there was. Of course anyone who has sourced information should add it.

Paul B (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the accusations about J.C. and Cleopatra were slander as they were even more so vis a vis Mark Anthony, and the same is of course true for the accusations and insunuations about J.C. and Nicomedes, for different reasons. Your understanding of the Romans seems to be quite fanciful. Similarly your theories about the meaning of Brehon law while interesting, are about as valid as my speculation as to why I found a hole in my shirt this morning. I'm certain we could fill up many many phone books with argument out into infinity, but as you say, the sourced information is what matters. I've attempted to discuss this with you in good faith, I am under the impression that doesn't exist on your side of the discussion. I even tried to contact you on your talk page to no avail. You were distorting my comments and making accusations toward me from the get-go, apparently infuriated by my correlation between pederasty and pedophillia. I could care less. The data will speak for itself, and other people can argue with you from now on. Drifter bob (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is the level of your argument then I suggest you read some books. Unless you know what was actually true and what wasn't - which you don't - then you can't say what is and what isn't slander can you? Since we don't know what actually happened between JC and Nicomedes we have no idea whether it was or wasn't slander do we? The rest of your comments add nothing. Yes the data will speak for itself and yes I think your equation of pederasty with paedophilia is deeply misleading and ahistorical. I don't know who these "other people" are who will argue with me, because I can't see a great body of people on this page who agree with you. Certainly I see no-one who shares your fixation with paedophilia. Your sudden concern for sources is quite amusing given your attempts to dismiss a professor in an earlier post without providing any source at all except your sweeping personal assertions. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All right now, were all Celts (and Romans, Greeks and pretty much everybody in Europe) homo's, or not? I am a bit confused here: Romans say Celts were gay, Greeks say both were homo, and everybody in the world knows Romans were faggots! My take on this is that everybody in Europe were fags! True?

Athaneus Quote

One other thing I'm a little confused about sincerely, is what 'Celts' is Athaneus talking about here in 300 AD? The Celtic world in continental Europe is under Roman rule and in Roman culture at this point isn't it? Drifter bob (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok going once can anybody explain to me what Celts Athanaus was referring to in the 4th Century AD? Otherwise I think this quote should be removed as it sounds like it's a rumor at best. Drifter bob (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's from book 13 of his Deipnosophists:[1] He calls them "Celtae" and is not more specific than that. However, the reference is in a section describing the history of the practice; he is not necessarily talking about his contemporaries, but rather to historical "Celtae", especially if he is taking this from Diodorus. That is not to say that he couldn't have been referring to contemporary Celts, either outside the Empire or within it. However, it's already been established that the source is weak, we don't need to bludgeon the point further.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archeological evidence of Women Warriors

I wanted to point out here that there has been a bit of a revelation with regard to many Scythian graves which have turned out to be women warriors. Because DNA testing is very expensive and osteological analysis is not always possible (due to incomplete remains) archeologists / historians have automatically classified any body buried with a weapon as male, any body buried with say a spindle whorl or a mirror as female. When they found bodies with both in Scythian context they came up with a theory of transvestite warriors. Subsequent DNA testing of some remains from kurgans in Ukraine and IIRC Usbekistan revealed that the skeletons were in fact female. Then it was speculated that the women were priestesses and the weapons were ornamental or ceremonial. Two skeletons were found to have arrowheads embedded in them and one had a healed blade wound on the bones of her left arm, and some of the weapons (akinakes type swords) were of a functional type made for smaller than average wielders.

Subsequently some other analysis of remains from Scandinavia and the Baltic found in a weapon plus 'female' goods context have also proven to be female. Much of this has happend in the last 5-10 years. I'm wondering if anything may have come up with La Tene or Hallstadt graves. I thought I should bring it up in case anyone sees anything we should include in this article.Drifter bob (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much help this may be - look at Isidor Engl re Halstatt graves. According to Cunliffe (Yes, I know, here I go again!) there were meticulous records kept during the original excavations. (The Celtic World, pp 22-23) There did seem to be a class difference between the rich and the poor during that era - according to the text, the poor seemed to have stuck to the Urnfield traditions. Gabhala (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeland discussion a mess

The article currently states: "The new international trade routes opened by the Beaker people where there to remain and the culture was succeeded by a number of Bronze Age cultures, among them the Unetice culture (Central Europe), ca. 2300 BC, and by the Nordic Bronze Age, a culture of Scandinavia and northernmost Germany-Poland, ca. 1800 BC. Almost all of this areas emerge to history as Celtic." That's quite a mess sense the Nordic Bronze Age culture is almost universally considered to be proto-Germanic, not Celtic. This type of confusion seems to run throughout this section. And then there's the general lack of sourcing. If someone has access to Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans," it would be great if you would use this excellent, balanced, and widely praised volume in crafting a new entry and sourcing the information to Mallory. I'm not sure where my copy of the book is or I would do it myself. I don't want to try it from memory lest I merely compound the errors. Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I left my copy with an ex-girlfriend and I can't see me getting it back. Still, the library is there. Paul B (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Head Taking

In the section on head-taking, it would be helpful if the following sentence had a reference, and if the section in the article included more description of the source of the statement and the historical evidence supporting the idea it contains: "Separated from the mundane body, although still alive, the animated head acquires the ability to see into the mythic realm."

Without it, the sentence sounds like the kind of thing you see in so much literary criticism or analysis of mythology, just to take a couple of examples, that amounts to nothing more than self-indulgent psycho-babble and fanciful speculating. If Celts really believed that severed heads saw into "the mythic realm," or whatever, it would be nice to know how we've figured it out, as that notion doesn't at all seem like (from the rest of the article section) the only possible explanation for their valuing severed heads of enemies. What is the use of a severed head that can see "the mythic world" if one can't oneself see "the mythic world"? It sounds like a lot of garbage, actually. I bet there's a writer somewhere who claims this, but it sounds more like literary criticism (the realm of garbage and inexpertly-practiced amateur psychology) than good archaeology/anthropology to me, so it would be nice to read the source and find out for sure. 67.85.225.175 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Swan

It's nonsense, articles like this attract a lot of it. If you find any more, just remove it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of the Celts taking a head to a church and praying around it (or a pre-Christian Celtic Church, I'm pretty sure their religion used very different types of buildings and holy sites). If anyone gets around to added back this comment, provide sources, you need them to add stuff, its how it works.

Another thing bothers me in the "headhunting?" section:

"The Celts believed that if they attached the head of their enemy to a pole or a fence near their house, the head would start screaming when the enemy was near."

Even if this statement had a source it flies in teh face of commonsense. I think they'd be disabused of any notion of a severed head acting as a guard dog the first time it failed to scream. If there is any truth at all in this statement it may be that such a tale was folklore, which is very very different to "belief" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.93.228 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the headhunting section needs a lot of work. My understanding is that they revered the head, but they didn't 'hunt' them, which is quite a different thing. Which is why I put a question mark at the end. Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

celtic treasure trove in Armorica

There was a pretty big find in Brittany just recently, many coins, allegedly dating back to the third century BC. I don't know how significant to Celtic history but it could end up adding some new archeological information. Numanistics from the coins without a doubt.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3244,36-991019,0.html

Drifter bob (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an english translation of the article, slightly reworded. Apparently this was a major find indeed.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article3266841.ece

Drifter bob (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment this tells us nothing, since the context is unclear. The discovery is just a few miles from our house, and the neighbours are now all out with their metal detectors. My wife visited the site, which is in the middle of roadworks near Laniscat, but there's really little to make sense of this material as yet. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a five minute video here. Worth a look. Even if you can't understand French there are some fine images of the coins, very much clearer than in any of the news reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please correct this page from Celt to Gaul

The word Celt comes from the Greek word 'Celtoi'. Celt is a corruption of the word Galat which is the true word used by these people. Never has it been recorded or suggested that these people ever called themselves "Celts" but in all cases called themselves 'GAULS'. In France and central Europe they were called Gauls, In the British Isles they are called 'Gaels', In Turkey they were called 'Galat'. The reason Rome attacked Britain is because of Gauls from the British Isles coming over and attacking Romans to help their French Gaelic cousins. Prior to the Roman invasion of France, the ties on either side of English channel must have been strong between the Gaelic tribes.

There is also a possibility that Galat comes from Got (Goth) which would relate them to Germanic tribes of Northern Europe. Though this is not a proven fact and is just a theory.

NO WHERE IN THIS ARTICLE DOES IT GIVE THE CORRECT INFORMATION THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE CALLED THEMSELVES 'GAULS', NOR DOES IT MAKE CLEAR THAT 'CELT' IS A GREEK CORRUPTION OF THE WORD GALAT THAT THE LATIN SPEAKING WORD USED IN REFERENCE TO THEM. THIS FACT SHOULD BE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AND ALL REFERENCES TO THE GAULS / GAELIC PEOPLE SHOULD BE UNDER THEIR PREFERRED TITLE. THIS LEADS ON TO REFERENCES OF GAELIC FRANCE AND GALATIA IN TURKEY. IT ALSO LEADS ON INTO THE UK AND THE SURVIVING GAELIC LANGUAGE OF IRELAND AND SCOTLAND. THE BRITISH LANGUAGES OF WELSH, BRETON AND CORNISH ARE ALL BRANCHES OF GAELIC AS CELTIC IS NOT A TRUE WORD BUT A GREEK REFERENCE TO THE GAELIC PEOPLE.

When we use the mass use of the term 'Celt' it give many people the impression that they called themselves by this title and that the Gauls were just a related people. This is not the case as they all called themselves 'GAULS'.

The original Brits and people of Western Europe such as the Basque were not a Gaelic people but more likely were a Mediterranean people later colonised for mining and trade. The Gauls it seems came around only a thousand years or so before Christ and brought their language and customs with them and replaced much of the spoken language of the time. Some words in Welsh can be traced to the near east which would explain the trading links of the original Brits. It also explains how many Cornish, Welsh & Irish are very dark haired.

Please if we are to set the history books correct, then lets give the true information and picture.

Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Julius Caesar (De Bello Gallico 1.1) said "All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae live, another in which the Aquitani live, and the third are those who in their own tongue are called Celts, in our language Gauls." (emphasis added). "Gaul" comes from Gallus, a Roman word for a people who called themselves Celtae. Not all the people now referred to as "Celtic" called themselves Celtae, it's true, but none of them called themselves Gauls. It is more likely that Latin Galli comes from Greek Galatae, which comes from Celtic Celtae (the Greeks also used the term Keltoi, more or less interchangeably with Galatae), than the other way round. The modern word "Celt" is a term for the languages related to that spoken by the Celtae and the cultures associated with those languages. It was not used in that sense in the ancient world, but it is a useful and valid modern term. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

??? I stand corrected as this is not what I've been taught. I will go away a research deeper. If this is the case as you claim, then how come the Irish call their language 'Gaelic'? Is this also from Rome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Irish call their language Gaeilge (but for some reason insist it be called "Irish" in English). "Gaelic" also applies to the languages of western Scotland and the Isle of Man, which were both colonised from Ireland. The word Gaeilge derives from Old Irish Goídel (which itself apparently comes from Welsh Gwyddel) and has no relation to Galli or Galatae - any similarity is entirely coincidental. The term "Gaelic" only applies to the languages of Ireland and those parts of the British Isles colonised from Ireland, not to the British Isles as a whole. Welsh, Cornish and Breton, which descend from the language of ancient Britain, are Brythonic, not Gaelic, languages. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source on this? As we discussed previously, I find it very hard to believe that any population would take to identifying themselves and their culture in their own language by a foreign derogatory term, and even if they did, what did they call themselves prior to exposure to the term? I suspect that the the Goídhel/Gwyddel similarity is the coincidence, since there is already a cognate to Gwyddel in Gaelic - namely Gabhail. Gabhala (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't - I only mention it because every time I mention on Wikipedia that Gaeilge derives from earlier Goídelc and therefore is not related to Galli, someone follows up with "Goídel derives from Gwyddel". I don't know if this is accurate, hence the "apparently". However, I don't see how gabhail can be a cognate of Gwyddel, which is fairly clearly derived from the Old Irish verb gaibid, "takes", and has a completely different middle consonant. Unless there's a meaning of gabhail I'm not aware of, which is not beyond the realms of possibility, but I have checked several dictionaries. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The closest English translation of gabhail is indeed "to take", but in a wider sense as a noun it also can mean a raid, a conquest, or even a junction - in other words "a taking". Hence Lebor Gabhala na hEirinn - the Book of Conquests. In Munster, and perhaps other areas of Ireland, it is also used to signify a full load - as much as can be carried. The application of different consonants in cognates between Welsh and Irish is not unusual - take Irish Lugh = Welsh Ludd. In this case, the bh in gabhail is pronounced somewhere between an English v and a w, depending on dialect, and I believe in Welsh a dd is pronounced somewhat similarly to an English th. Something to bear in mind when looking at modern renderings of Old Irish is that the seimhiu marker indicating a lenited consonant was often dropped in transcription - these lenited consonant phonemes could only be represented in the Latin alphabet by marking existing Latin consonants. Again, I would like to mention that Gaul, Galli, etc. are Greek and Latin renderings of the word, and can only be taken as approximations of the word used by those peoples to refer to themselves. It stands to reason that phonemes alien to a particular language would be absent or substituted in any "borrow-words" derived from other languages. This is not to say that Gael and Gaul are definitely related, but I do not believe that any of the arguments I have encountered against this can rule out the possibility.Gabhala (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of non-marked lenition in Old Irish, but I still don't believe v or w can be etymologically linked to ð. The other problem is that Gwyddel is used in medieval Welsh texts to mean "Irishman". It's obviously a synonym for Goídel, the only question is whether it was borrowed from Welsh to Irish or the other way around. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one. It's no surprise that Gwyddel was used to mean "Irishman" - there are numerous records of Leinstermen raiding Wales throughout history, so "Raider" and "Irishman" becoming synonymous in Welsh is quite natural. However, I still find it difficult to accept that the entire population of Ireland would take to calling themselves "Pirates", and refering to their language and culture as "Piratish" on the influence of a non-invading neighbour's language. Gabhala (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: based on Caerdydd = "Cardiff", the dd cognates to v is maybe not so far out there...Gabhala (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but as food for thought, perhaps this is a case of the vandal--that is, that the Welsh word for pirate might have come from the Irish word for themselves, and not the other way around? In any case, I know next to nothing about the ancient Brythonic languages, and only very little Old Irish, and am an archaeologist not a linguist. 89.124.164.6 (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gallic" Shields

I have another question you may be able to answer. The Normans used shields called 'Gallic' shields. Considerring the Normans were of Nordic origin, where did this name for the shield come from and what did it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nordic shields were typically round in shape. Celtic shields tended to be oblong, protecting the knee and thigh of the left (defensive) leg when facing an adversary. The shields used by the Normans were shaped like an inverted teardrop, which was the most obvious compromise between the lighter round shield, and the overall weight of the oblong shield. Since Normandy was in "Gaul", it should be no surprise that the longer shield was refered to as Gallic Gabhala (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard Norman kite shields referred to as 'Gallic' before, only Kite or Teardrop. Is there any contemporary referrence to the term? The theory that the kite shield is a combination of Viking round shield and Celtic oblong shield is interesting. The standard interpretation (included in Wikipedia's page on Kite shield) is that it is purely an elongated round shield, developed for cavalry use and subsequently used by the infantry also. Considering that Viking, Anglo-Saxon and Frankish shields were round, who was using an oblong shield in the Normandy area in the 10th Century? Also, as Gaul had been a settled Roman province, isn't it equally as likely that any oblong shield design would have been based on Roman designs, not Celtic ones?91.102.62.253 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess

The inclusion of two scholars in a field of hundreds is problematic, as are their conclusions. Surely they know that much of Iberia was Celtic speaking. The insular Celts came from many places, including Gaul, Celtica, Belgica, and Iberia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.71.26 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Others have said it's a mess also, but what do you mean by 'the inclusion of two scholars'?--Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

hey, it's a work in progress. It's more difficult to come up with a decent article here, because "Celts" attract a lot of confused people. It's much better than it used to be, too. We'll get there. dab (𒁳) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

the genetics thing is overstated, and probably also misrepresented. Oppenheimer's study is interesting, but it has very little to do with the "origin of the Celts". "Oppenheimer's theory is that the modern day people of Wales, Ireland and Cornwall are mainly descended from Iberians who did not speak a Celtic language" appears to sum it up. This has nothing to do with the question of the locus of Proto-Celtic (except that it wasn't in Britain, nor in Iberia, which was never a suggestion in the first place). There may be debate whether the entire Hallstatt C culture was Proto-Celtic, but that Proto-Celtic is associated with Central Europe and Hallstatt in one way or another is pretty much beyond dispute. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the worst "genetic" confusions. Discussion of the genetics of Insular Celtic populations in particular would go to Genetic history of the British Isles, and possibly Iron Age Britain. This material concerned Paleolithic or Mesolithic migrations ostensibly unrelated to anything "Celtic". dab (𒁳) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Oppenheimer himself presents his material as evidence of the origin of "the Celts". He insists that it is proof that the "traditional view of the origins of the Celts" is wrong ('an archaeological myth left over from the 19th century'), and he tries to link his genetic evidence to the claim that "the Celts" originated in Iberia:

"there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or cultures as Celtic homelands. The notion derives from a mistake made by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark about the "Keltoi," he placed them at the source of the Danube, which he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia." [2]

I think we have to acknowldege Oppenheimer's own interpretation of his results. Paul B (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, but this is a terminological confusion. Oppenheimer's "the Celts" are the Modern Celts disambiguated at the top of this page. The Modern Celts, viz., the Gaelic speakers of the British Isles are genetically descended from Paleolithic immigrants from Iberia. Fine. Oppenheimer's claim that "there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or cultures as Celtic homelands" is nonsense. As a geneticist, he is quite obviously weaker in the humanities, and this claim (as opposed to his genetic research) should be considered in the WP:FRINGE department, viz. as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Identification of La Tène as Celtic has nothing to do with Herodotus. Herodotus' is just the ethnonym Keltoi, which may or may not be well-chosen for the ethno-linguistic group we call Celts today. The modern term Celts, however, is well-defined, quite regardless of Herodotus: the Celts are the people who lost their word-initial /p/ in the Early Iron Age. These people appear as the Gauls in Roman sources, from the 2nd century BC (which is still in the La Tène period!). Hence we know that the Gauls were Celts, and that the Gauls were La Tène. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I understand the distinction between modern ethnic "Celts", ancient "Celtic" culture and the Celtic languages, but the point is that you don't have to convince me. It's Oppenheimer himself who is making a claim which links them all. I consider Oppenheimer's views to be fringy too, along with his other pet theory that the English language already existed in England before the Romans came. But that's what he proposes nonetheless. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

well, no problem then, but a simple case of WP:FRINGE. I see no reason to mention such speculations here. For whatever they are worth, they might be briefly mentioned at Britons (historic). --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm: "but that Proto-Celtic is associated with Central Europe and Hallstatt in one way or another is pretty much beyond dispute". There can't be very much concerning the Iron Age which is "beyond dispute" and it is far from being beyond dispute that there is any link between the Halstatt, Urnfeld or La Tène archaeological cultures and "Celts" in any form.

Kruta, Les Celtes, s.v. "Irlande":

Les racines du peuplement celtique de l'Irlande dont l'origine avait été souvent cherchée dans des migrations continetales halstattiennes ou laténiennes doivent être aujourd'hui repoussées à une date nettement plus ancienne, probablement jusqi'aux derniers siècles du III^e millénaire av. J.–C. et l'arrivée dans la région de populations de souche indo-européenne qui imposèrent progressivement leur langue au substrat indigène néolithique.

Harbison, Pre-Christian Ireland, p. 171:

As Indo-European languages are unlikely to have reached Central Europe much earlier than 3000 bc, it seems scarcely possible that the first builders of megalithic tombs, let alone [Ireland's] first farmers or even earliest inhabitants, were speakers of an Indo-European language. ... If the search for large scale 'invasions' in the Irish archaeological record proves negative, it is perhaps more advisable to see the arrival of Indo-European or Celtic-speaking peoples as a gradual process which took place not at one fell swoop causing great upheavals in society, but peacefully over hundreds or thousands of years — Hawkes concept of 'cumulative Celticity'. The process may well have begun during the early Bronze Age...

One might also consider chapter 10 (which I won't quote from as I have the French translation) of Raftery's Pagan Celtic Iron Age where the absence of Hallstatt and La Tène culture items in much of Ireland is noted. Or Armit's Celtic Scotland (or, as he says in the intro Celtic Scotland?), p. 14: "There is no necessary or even likely connection between Hallstatt and La Tène artefacts and Celtic languages, which probably had a rather wider social and geographic currency: Celtic-speakers in parts of Ireland, Spain and Portugal, for example, seem to have largely eschewed La Tène material." I could go on. One approach to this might be to say that nobody knows, but here are some theories which have been and/or are popular in various quarters of academia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

what? what is it?

Archaeological discoveries at the Vix Burial indicate that women could achieve high status and power within at least one Celtic society. As Celtic history was only carried forward by oral tradition, it has been advanced that the traditions finally recorded in the seventh century can be projected back through Celtic history. If this is so then, according to the Cáin Lánamna, a woman had the right to demand divorce, take back whatever property she brought into the marriage and be free to remarry. If later Celtic tradition can be projected back, and from Ireland to Britain and the continent, then Celtic law demanded that children, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped be looked after.

Doesn't it occur to the gentle masses that this is not fair? When we discuss history, the rules of honest discourse require that we don't veer into comparisons with the present, for these comparisons as usual assume that the state of affairs today is the right one -- and that is in prejudice against history, and will look strange to the generation in five hundred years which will look back on all this and augh, and shake its head at how petty the human quest for importance can get. --VKokielov (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will append to this a qualification. I am not denying that women were suppressed, and had to be rescued; I am only denying that the modern answer to that suppression was necessarily the right one. --VKokielov (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

move

I know this has been discussed before at some point, but can we move this to Celts? Articles on ethnic groups are always at the plural form. Germanic peoples, Greeks, Armenians, Albanians, Serbs, Germans (need I go on?). This isn't an article on "a Celt". dab (𒁳) 08:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved again. Has been discussed before. Not sure how it ended up back here. These days with moves appearing on watchlists it is less likely to be silently moved back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clothing

It might be worth adding a reference to the sumptuary laws in the Irish Brehon Code in the clothing section.

These laws stipulated what colours or colour-combinations could be worn by each layer of society. That is kings could wear many different colours at once whilst slaves were pretty much monochrome. Second to the kings in colourfulness, and above chieftains and warriors, were the "Men of Skill" such as poets. The laws give an insight into the statification of Celtic society and the prominence they gave to personal appearance.

Urselius (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

Stephen Oppenheimer in a 2006 Prospect Magazine article denounces the mainstream views of Celtic expansion as "an archaeological myth left over from the 19th century." Oppenheimer's "Celts" are the genetic ancestors of the British, the paleolithic "Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets."

this is, frankly, bullshit nonsense, and not encyclopedia-worthy. Oppenheimer is a geneticist, and we can cite his genetic study on British populations, but the views on historical linguistics he saw fit to air in this "general interest" magazine article will best go unmentioned. dab (𒁳) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't use the language. I don't know whether it's a rule, but its probably good policy. ---G.T.N. (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

by "bullshit", I mean worthless speculation based on a terminological confusion. Oppenheimer may have done solid work in his own field (genetics), but he clearly ventured to comment on another field (historical linguistics) innocent of any background knowledge. Let's stick to discussing his scholarly work, at Genetic history of the British Isles. dab (𒁳) 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you do Oppenheimer a disservice here; perhaps because his view conflict with yours? His work is primarily with the genetics but the linguistic analysis is sound and does discuss various views and studies on the origins of English. It is clear that English does not sit well as a language simmply deriving from low level invasions of Agles and Saxons. Oppenheimers poitn is that the genetics show that genetic markers from Scandinavia predate those invasions and go a long way back. The linguistic work overlies this to give added weight to the theory that teh East of Britain was over a long time, genetically, culturally and linguistically different to the West - not in a fully ethnic sense of course but as a definite sign of different influences. Oppenheimers work is very credible and well researched. As yet I have not seen anythign to challenge it ( though I retain an open mind). --Attatatta (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This article panders to Victorian myths that Albion and Hibernia were settled by Celts, the use of DNA is important because it deals with facts not some wishy washy Victorian romantic ideals of the Celts (Boudicca was hijacked by the Victorians who wanted to portray Queen Victoria in the same light of leading the nation, it is also from that period when George I to Victoria when the establishment who engineered the Anglo Saxon rubbish in an attempt to get the British population on side with the House of Hanover (we are all Saxons). In Somerset long established families had their DNA tested and it was found they had links to the Cheddar Gorge man. Those who are slagging of Oppenheimer work are trying to defend something which has no facts. Even respected historians like Neil Oliver say the Celts in Britain is a myth.

Three Quarters of the UK population have DNA which links them to people who were here a long time before the Romans came, very few have Saxon/Viking/Norman blood. The use of DNA provides facts, some people don't like it because its overturns Victorian speculation and myths. --81.105.53.201 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

what blooming nonsense. Please read the article, "Celticity" isn't a heritable disease, it's an ethno-linguistic supergroup. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you two disagree. I'm not happy with the 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph of the article, which looks pretty invasionist/migrationist to me. Doug Weller (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is that you have to explain how the languages were adopted, and that implies some form of invasion or migration. What it does not imply is massive population replacement. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read the interesting idea somewhere that Bronze Age Britain may have been IE-speaking already by the time the Celts arrived. If the puny bands of Celtic migrants came to dominate a population that already spoke a "para-Italo-Celtic" IE dialect, it would explain why no traces of the pre-Celtic language remain. Another point to consider is that the less "migrationist" your scenario, the more "invasionist" you'll have to make it. I.e., you are looking at either a massive but possibly peaceful immigration of a substrate, or a little tiny migration of a few warbands who, however, install themselves on top ('invasion') and everybody ends up speaking their langauge. In this sense, "invasionism" and "migrationism" are opposites and not something you should combine with a -slash-. The phrasing that Celts had expanded over wide range of lands can be taken either "migrationist" or "invasionist". For the southeastern part of the territory in question, we are actually looking at history, and these accounts look pretty "invasionist" to me (Brennus, the looting of Delphi, etc.) I don't see any reason the expansion in all other directions should have been of a very different nature just because there were no literate societies taking notes. An opposite to both migrationism and invasionism is, of course, diffusionism, meaning that the assimilation proceeds very gradually along a contact zone. But in the case of the Celts, the expansion is so swift that we would need to assume "high-speed diffusionism", which would probably be indistinguishable from migrationism. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Violent invasions can be followed by peaceful migrations, that is basically what happened with the 'Danish' 'invasion'. I agree, there was a considerable influx (better?) of Celtic speaking continentals during a few centuries just before the Roman invasion. It isn't just historically recorded, it's pretty clear in the archaeology there - but not elsewhere. There are suggestions that Celtic actually developed on the Atlantic coast, that Bronze Age Britain was IE speaking, etc. I've also seen the suggestion that societies under pressure may change languages pretty rapidly. We might have had a very small elite somehow causing the language change. We don't really know when people first began to speak Celtic in Ireland and Great Britain. The archaeology, as I recall, doesn't really support the common sense interpretation of 'expanded over wide range of lands' which to me at least implies a pretty major population movement and I suspect would be read by the average naive reader the same way. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is there is no evidence for a Celtic speaking influx in the Iron Age. This is mostly because there is no linguistic evidence for this period and also because there is no basis for suggesting a Celtic population movement into Britain. Loose theories about Pre-celtic languages in Britain give us little to go on. The overall picture would suggest a consistent genetic backgound with gradual cultural change (these days known as "progress") and that the Celtic languages were established further back, and linked to the mainland by trade and contact along the Wester European coast. --Attatatta (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

perhaps it would help to make clear that this isn't about "the Celts", but rather about various Celtic peoples, who likely had long ceased to be aware of one another. There are the Gauls, who probably can indeed be said to have "invaded" Italy, the Balkans, Greece and Anatolia. Then there are the Celtiberians (nobody knows when and how exactly they got to Iberia) and then again there are the Insular Celts (again, how and when exactly they expanded throughout the British Isles is unknown, but it is evident from the result that expand they did). dab (𒁳) 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that the idea of Celtic expansion doesn't quite stand up in the long understood sense. We know that people who are seen as the Celts did attack Rome and move accross europe. There isn't any corresonding evidence for a Celtic invasion or migration into Britain. What there is however is strong evindence that the majority of Britain's popultion has been consistent since the post glacial migration from Basque Iberia. What we now see as "Celtic" in the British Isles is a mix of cultural and linguistic influxes over a very long period. It would be as daft to suggest there was no migration or confict as it is to suggest there was population replacement - which is not discredited at the genetic level. --Attatatta (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Prospect magazine article Oppenheimer makes a pretty good case for discounting the Victorian myth and I think it is worthwhile looking at the inconsistancies of the Halstatt homeland in a little more critical detail, as Oppenheimer does. Here are his main points, without reprinting volumes of his work in Origins of the British. "Many archaeologists still hold this view of a grand iron-age Celtic culture in the centre of the continent, which shrank to a western rump after Roman times. It is also the basis of a strong sense of ethnic identity that millions of members of the so-called Celtic diaspora hold. But there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or cultures as Celtic homelands. The notion derives from a mistake made by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark about the “Keltoi,” he placed them at the source of the Danube, which he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia. "The late 19th-century French historian Marie Henri d’Arbois de Jubainville decided that Herodotus had meant to place the Celtic homeland in southern Germany. His idea has remained in the books ever since, despite a mountain of other evidence that Celts derived from southwestern Europe. For the idea of the south German “Empire of the Celts” to survive as the orthodoxy for so long has required determined misreading of texts by Caesar, Strabo, Livy and others. And the well-recorded Celtic invasions of Italy across the French Alps from the west in the 1st millennium BC have been systematically reinterpreted as coming from Germany, across the Austrian Alps.

"De Jubainville’s Celtic myth has been deconstructed in two recent sceptical publications: The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention by Simon James (1999), and The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions by John Collis (2003). Nevertheless, the story lingers on in standard texts and notably in The Celts, a Channel 4 documentary broadcast in February. “Celt” is now a term that sceptics consider so corrupted in the archaeological and popular literature that it is worthless.

"This is too drastic a view. It is only the central European homeland theory that is false. The connection between modern Celtic languages and those spoken in southwest Europe during Roman times is clear and valid. Caesar wrote that the Gauls living south of the Seine called themselves Celts. That region, in particular Normandy, has the highest density of ancient Celtic place-names and Celtic inscriptions in Europe. They are common in the rest of southern France (excluding the formerly Basque region of Gascony), Spain, Portugal and the British Isles. Conversely, Celtic place-names are hard to find east of the Rhine in central Europe.

"Given the distribution of Celtic languages in southwest Europe, it is most likely that they were spread by a wave of agriculturalists who dispersed 7,000 years ago from Anatolia, travelling along the north coast of the Mediterranean to Italy, France, Spain and then up the Atlantic coast to the British Isles. There is a dated archaeological trail for this. My genetic analysis shows exact counterparts for this trail both in the male Y chromosome and the maternally transmitted mitochondrial DNA right up to Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and the English south coast.

"Further evidence for the Mediterranean origins of Celtic invaders is preserved in medieval Gaelic literature. According to the orthodox academic view of “iron-age Celtic invasions” from central Europe, Celtic cultural history should start in the British Isles no earlier than 300 BC. Yet Irish legend tells us that all six of the cycles of invasion came from the Mediterranean via Spain, during the late Neolithic to bronze age, and were completed 3,700 years ago".

I would like to see more weight given to the critical analysis of the 'Halstatt Homeland' theory in the 'ORIGINS' section. There also seems to be little detail and prominance placed to the evidence to Atlantic sea routes as per Barry Cuncliffe work.

J S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.99.77 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I really have to point out something,about the Celtic place names.As far as i know in wikipedia,it is written that there is some uncertainity whether the name Lithuania (Lietuva),the river Don,as well as the river Oder and Vistula,and the regions of Vollhynia and Galicia in the nothwestern part of Ukraine are Celtic placenames.There are some regions in Belarus as well,which i noted as Celtic placenames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor comment - pls make this sentance intelligable

I'm college educated and fairly well read, yet I have no idea what this sentence from the overview means "Continental Celtic languages are attested only epigraphically and in toponymy." Perhaps 'attested' is commonly used in this context among language experts, but it's not elsewhere. And this is my first time encountering the terms 'epigraphically' and 'toponymy'. Firefox's spell checker doesn't recognize those terms either. I would suggest that instead of showing off your academic depth and focus you rewrite this sentence so that those of us who would like to learn something about the Celts can make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.

Otherwise, thanks for the obvious hard work put in on this article.

Ronewolf (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Understandable - I've since changed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

epigraphy means "inscription" and toponymy means "placename" (both articles at these titles. inscription and place name are redirects!). Nothing a dictionary of English, or just an on-wiki search, wouldn't answer, no need to sit through college for that... dab (𒁳) 10:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetic section

There is now ample genetic research in relation to the areas of habitation of the Celts, especially the Atlantic Celts. There was a section there and was deleted and some users continue deleting it. It is unacceptable that some people want to keep other people ignorant about these new findings.

Just read Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes, (read both links for some information) and their two books published in 2006, Origins of the British and Blood of the Isles, that deal with the Celtic issue at length using mainly genetic evidence.

This genetic section should be in the article again. I wonder why some people keep deleting it?. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

see above, this was moved to Genetic history of the British Isles because it only concerns Insular Celts, not the ancient Celts as a whole. Inasmuch as it is pertinent, you might want to introduce a "Genetics" section to Modern Celts, too. Both books you mentioned are duly referenced in the article already, under "Insular Celts":

"The Celtic invasion of the British Isles is difficult to document genetically. Two published books - The Blood of the Isles by Bryan Sykes and The Origins of the British: a Genetic Detective Story by Stephen Oppenheimer - are based upon recent genetic studies, and show that the majority of Britons have ancestors from the Iberian Peninsula, as a result of a series of migrations that took place during the Mesolithic and, to a lesser extent, the Neolithic eras.[ How did pygmy shrews colonize Ireland? Clues from a phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences"

I suppose this is an adequate summary for the puropses of this article (although I'm not sure what the pygmy shrew link is doing here...). If you are interested in the topic, you are more than welcome to helping transform the Genetic history of the British Isles into something readable. dab (𒁳) 11:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Picts

in the context of insular Celts, it would be rather important to discuss the question of the Picts/Priteni. Afaik, the jury is still out on the question to what extent the Picts of antiquity were already Celticized. We know there must have been a Celtic "invasion" of the British Isles, from about 700 to 400 BC. The pre-Celtic populations where subsequently Celticized completely. But it is unknown by what time this process has been complete, because we cannot make any statement on the languages of Scotland or Ireland prior to AD 500 or so. It is, therefore, anyone's guess whether the Piktoi of Greco-Roman sources were Celtic speakers. We need to look for literature on this. My guess is that we need to research toponymy and demonymy. The very name Priteni would seem to be a candidate for a pre-Celtic name, because it was rendered as Cwriteni in Proto-Irish: is it more likely that the Greeks rendered a Celtic labiovelar as a p, or that the Gaels rendered a pre-Celtic p as a labiovelar? Not for us to decide on-wiki, but this is the question we need to look into in literature. dab (𒁳) 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted an edit claiming no evidence for Pictish being Celtic, here's a reference [3]. I don't think it's a done deal that there was any kind of Celtic invasion or that the Britons weren't speaking Celtic earlier than 700 BC (see even Barry Cunliffe on this now).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

sure, your edit just made me think about the question, and I am saying we need to look into it. We need a "Celtic invasion" at some point, of course, since there are Celtic languages found in the British Isles. I don't see how you can push it back further than 700 BC at the earliest. Well, you might go and call the Beaker people "Celts", but that seems nonsensical. I do imagine the case with the Picts (were they Celts?) might lie somewhat similarly as the case of the Macedonians (were they Greeks?). The Picts may have been fully Celticized by AD 500, but may have had a pre-Celtic identity in AD 200. The Macedonians were fully Atticized by 300 BC, but they may have had a separate "pre-Greek" identity in 600 BC. These processes are gradual. Why, O'Rahilly's historical model doesn't go back to before 700 BC, and even this is rather fanciful. Does Cunliffe push back the date into the Bronze Age or what is his approach? dab (𒁳) 11:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Although your 700BC date is plausible, it is by no means fact. The Indo European expansion began around 3300 BC(David Anthony) and appears to have been aided by maritime travel in the Mediteranean. This would ultimately have lead to colonisation of the West of the British Isles via the Pillars of Hercules and could have occured as long ago as 2000BC in small parts. Tin mines would have been prime targets. The Eastern part of Britain particularly Kent is likely to have had the first Indo European colonisation/expansion via the very near continent. This is highly likely to have been Germanic. Oppenheimer suggests rightly that there was a period of an Eastern Celtic encroachment and a Germanic western one, with aboriginal, presumable non-indo-european speakers being squeezed out/assimilated in the middle over a period of hundreds of years. The last refuge would have been mountainous inaccessable areas as in Pictland. I think the concept of single all conquering expansions happening in a matter of decades or less is just not reasonable given the tiny technological advantages available compared to the modern era. Theo Vennemann has an extremely interesting theory that the Pictish language was Semitic via limited colonisation of Phoenicians/Carthaginians who we know ruled the Western Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts in the early 1st millenium BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.139.219 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Phoenician idea is bizarre. The Theo Vennemann article does has some dubious stuff in it about Celtic -- I'm referring to the Gray and Atkinson stuff. Another one of these ideas where 'they were here but left no artefacts'. We don't need an invasion necessarily for language change. We do need something happening, religious, trade, whatever, probably at a time when the indigenous population was for some reason open to change. We simply can't ignore the archaeology either. An invasion would bring new housing styles, new pottery styles, etc. -- you'd expect quite a radical change. We do see local adaptations of continental art, but they show influence, not invasion. Doug Weller (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Picts were a Germanic tribe from Norway. Anyone with half an understanding of contemporary histirians such as Bede would know this. Not 'Celtic' at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.136 (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Picts main area of occupation is Sutherland. I.E. Land south of Norway. Named so by the Norwegians to refre to their southern cousins. The Picts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.136 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Settlement of the British Isles

Further information: Talk:Prehistoric Britain

Waddell & Conroy ("Celts: Maritime Contacts and Language Change" in Archaelogy and Language, IV, 1999), after covering the various options from the Iron Age to the Beaker Culture, say: "In fact, the emergence of a Celtic language or languages in later prehistory would be due to an intensification of a complex series of processes operating across Europe since the third millennium BC" [p. 128]. Nicely vague. Of invasions, Cunliffe says "On balance I would argue that there is no evidence in the British Isles to suggest that a population group of any size migrated from the Continent in the first millennium BC, always remembering, however, the wise platitude that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense." [Iron Age Britain, pp. 15–16] See my comment at #This article is a mess for other quotes on invasions and dating. Now it's your turn, who says "fanciful" and "nonsensical"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is 'ancient Celts as a whole' mean/imply? What we don't have is an academic consensus about the origins of the Celtic language family, right? Or how Britons came to speak a Celtic language. Cunliffe writes, p. 295 Facing the Ocean, "Considerable continuities in the archaeological record in the west have argued strongly against any sudden change in the first millennium BC." He suggests that 'Celtic', which he prefers to call Atlantic Celtic, may have developed in the area "over the four millennia that maritime contacts had been maintained, perhaps reaching its distinctive form in the Late Bronze Age when communication along the sea lanes was at its most intense, and when many aspects of the elite system, technology, and beliefs had coalesced to create a broadly similar cultural continuum."

Then there is this. "Brian McEvoy, B, M. Richards, P. Forster & DG. Bradley (2004) "The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe" Am J Hum Genet. October 2004; 75(4): 693-702.

" Celtic languages are now spoken only on the Atlantic facade of Europe, mainly in Britain and Ireland, but were spoken more widely in western and central Europe until the collapse of the Roman Empire in the first millennium a.d. It has been common to couple archaeological evidence for the expansion of Iron Age elites in central Europe with the dispersal of these languages and of Celtic ethnicity and to posit a central European "homeland" for the Celtic peoples. More recently, however, archaeologists have questioned this "migrationist" view of Celtic ethnogenesis. " [...]. " What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers-or former Celtic speakers-of the Atlantic facade. The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain. Although some level of Iron Age immigration into Britain and Ireland could probably never be ruled out by the use of modern genetic data, these results point toward a distinctive Atlantic genetic heritage with roots in the processes at the end of the last Ice Age. "

For the full, long, abstract with maps and full refs, see on PubMed [4] - available free, I just downloaded it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ahem, this appears to be mainly about the relative size of the "invading" populations. I can accept with a shrug that no population group "of any size" migrated, but in the context of Celtic expansion, we are specifically interested in these groups, never mind their size. We do have an academic consensus on the origin of Celtic: Proto-Celtic, Central Europe, roughly 1000 BC. What we do not have is a consensus for how and when these langauges reached Britain or Ireland. The hand waving about four millennia and the Bronze Age is very nice but completely irrelevant to "Celtic" in the linguistic sense. I am perfectly happy to dismiss "invasion" in favour of diffusionism, since this does seem to fit the evidence. But what we are interested in the context of "Celts" is precisely this "gradual diffusion" during the Iron Age, and not the neolithic "Atlantic facade", however interesting in its own right, "Celtic" is simply a misnomer for that. It is beyond me why geneticists suddenly claim "Celtic" as a term for genetic traits. Nothing but terminological confusion will come of it. Which will, of course, result in no end of neo-racialist nonsense in the blogosphere and among authors who cannot or for ideological reasons do not want to distinguish genetics and language. The proper phrasing of Cunliffe's findings would be something like "genetics does not support any sizeable Iron Age invasion, lending support to the diffusionist model of Insular Celtic expansion." dab (𒁳) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem - Celts are simply people who spoke a variety of related language, perhaps not all mutually intelligible during the period in question. Your rephrasing of Cunliffe is good. But I'm not convinced about an academic consensus of when Celtic developed, are you familiar with Don Ringe's work? Take a look at this: [5]--Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. The page you link to estimates the date of Proto-Italo-Celtic to roughly 2500 BC. That's rather reasonable if you want to date both Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic to roughly 1000 BC. "Roughly 1000 BC" doesn't mean "give or take 50 years", but more likely "give or take 300 years", so I suppose 1300 to 700 BC would be an acceptable "mainstream" range of the development of Proto-Celtic. dab (𒁳) 08:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream among linguists, perhaps. Archaeologists - Cunliffe's view has nothing to do with genetics, it's based on archaeology - might like an earlier date. The linguists' date is for pre-proto-whatsit in central Europe, the archaeologists I've seen tend to favour a similar range for the origins of insular Celtic. Not the same thing at all then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

yes. the date of Proto-Celtic is a purely linguistic question. The question of the date of Insular Celtic (a group languages descended from Proto-Celtic) is a purely linguistic question. You are right that the Genetic history of the British Isles is a completely unrelated topic, so I don't know why you should bring it up on this page. It appears the population of the British Isles derives from LGM immigration of Atlantic fringe populations 15,000 years ago. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "Celts" for at least another 12,300 years until the Isles were "Celticized" in one way or another with the onset of the British Iron Age from around 700 BC at the earliest. The scope of this article does not extend beyond this time, but there are other articles where the Upper Paleolithic, the Neolithic and the Bronze Age are on topic. I think migrationism vs. diffusionism has long been a major topic in British archaeology, and it appears as if diffusionism was gaining the upper hand. Even if this is granted, there is no reason to discuss pre-Celtic populations in the "Celts" article. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Genetics? The proper phrasing of Cunliffe's findings would be something like "genetics does not support any sizeable Iron Age invasion, lending support to the diffusionist model of Insular Celtic expansion." As I said, it's the archaeology, and not genetics, which Cunliffe bases this view on.

Yes, the origin of Celtic languages is ultimately a linguistic question, but linguists didn't formulate the migrationist model. We have people writing about cumulative Celticity, diffusionism, the longue durée of the Atlantic façade, creolisation, a process lasting millennia, while another group are paraphrased as supposing that "Proto-Celtic may correspond to the Hallstatt culture ...". So let's not oversimplify things. There are multiple theories on offer, of which a Hallstattian central European origin is only one.

Anyway, while all this is endlessly fascinating, it's not really at the heart of the matter. What is this article for? Who says there were such things as "Celtic society", "Celtic warfare and weapons", "Celtic religion"? They all get treated here. Why is a "Gaulish calendar" relevant? Is this really the right place to discuss the writings of classical authors on people who might possibly be Celts? Since not all Celts were Romanised, why is there a section on that? The main things we might usefully tell readers who arrive with Asterix and Obelix in mind would be more like (a) Celtic is a language group, not an "ethnic" label, (b) there are no diagnostically Celtic archaeological cultures, and no reason to suppose that everyone who spoke a Celtic language had a similar material culture, (c) that the same is true a fortiori where societies are concerned. If the reader left with the feeling that there is little which is certain, that would be no bad thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

really? Then, if you have a quotable theory proposing Celtic "creolisation, a process lasting millennia"(?!) pray let's hear it. What is this article for? The treatment of the history of the Celtic peoples of the Iron Age and Classical Antiquity. I do not think the point of this article is dispelling the "Asterix and Obelix mind", on the principle that we should not treat readers as morons or talk down to them. I beg to disagree completely with (a), (b) and (c) beyond their being truisms. Your agnosticism is completely misplaced. Obviously more is known about the Gauls than about the Picts, since the Gauls were much closer to literate Mediterranean culture. It is simply not true that "there is little that is certain". You can always focus on the unknown, but we do have a perfectly solid picture of Gaul, in terms of language, and culture, and archaeology. We have a rather fair picture of Roman era Britain and Iberia, although of course less clear than that of Gaul. This holds for every topic of ancient history, and I see no reason why in the case of the Celts in particular, such a fuss should be made about it.

I also find your contributions somewhat erratic. I started out discussing the Picts. You derailed that discussion by insisting on Paleolithic settlement. When I address Paleolithic settlement, you change course once again and talk about article structure in general, in an agnostic spirit that since "not all Celts were Romanised", we shouldn't talk about Romanisation at all. I am not sure what you want, but please try to address one point at ta time. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find your failure to read replies or articles rather worrisome. So we'd be about even then. As for the article content, we can come back to that.

Millennia? Creolisation? How about Waddell, John & Jane Conroy (1999) "Celts and others: maritime contacts and linguistic change", in R. Blench and M. Spriggs (eds), Archaeology and Language IV. Language Change and Cultural Transformation, 125-137. Routledge, London. I already mentioned that, and I also quoted from Kruta's Les Celtes, s.v. "Irlande", the English-language translation being among the references to this article, and Harbison too.

For the Picts, you might try Forsyth, who I thought I mentioned earlier but evidently did not. Her Language in Pictland is online. It has always been linked from both Picts and Pictish language. John Koch treats Pictish as Insular Celtic, e.g. in his note on names in Taylor (ed), Kings, Clerics and Chronicles in Scotland, so I presume that the same is true of his Celtic encyclopedia, which I believe you have access to. Jackson's non-Indo-European Pictish remains as elusive as ever if Forsyth and Nicolaisen (Scottish Place-names, 2000 edn, chapters 8 & 9) are to be believed. Happy reading, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware Pictish tends to be identified as Insular Celtic now, thanks. My original question was regarding the ethnonym itself. Re [6],I appreciate Waddell states "Celticization, becoming Celtic-speaking, was a Bronze Age process". He is honest enough to characterize the mainstream view: "that the Celts arrived in Britain and Ireland from the mainland of Europe can be taken as certain, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about the circumstances in which they arrived (Price 1987); "the Celts of the Hallstatt and particularly the La Tene period spread over the whole of Europe " (Schmidt 1992, 44); "Indeed, McCone (1994, 63) believes the first speakers of a Celtic tongue arrived in Ireland as late as about 200 BC." What Waddell is saying is merely, "The emergence of a Celtic language or languages in later prehistory would be due to an intensification of a complex series of processes operating across parts of Europe since the 3rd millennium BC". In other words, Celtic languages reached the British Isles via channels of diffusion that had been active since Beaker times.

"Koch (1991, 18) sees the developments in the later Irish Bronze Age from about 1300 BC as significant in this respect. The more aristocratic and warlike nature of society, the conspicuous display in fine weaponry and ornament and the deposition of fine metalwork in pits and in watery contexts (a shift towards a chthonic religion) all find parallels in Britain and on the Continent and reflect a social and cultural reordering 'in all respects recognisably Celtic'."

The point made here is thus that the cultural unity of the "Atlantic fringe" predates Proto-Celtic, and that we are looking at the emergence of a cultural unity from at least 1300 BC onward. No trace of any claims involving "many millennia". The focus is widened to include perhaps one millennium (the late Bronze Age) prior to the arrival of Celtic proper, that's all. If it makes you happy, I will willingly admit that "a minority opinion revives 1920s to 1930s notions of 'Bronze Age Celts', assuming a Celticization process beginning in the Late Bronze Age". That would be about 500 years before the mainstream date, not "many millennia". If you look above, I have gladly admitted "give or take 300 years" is within the range of reasonable scholarly opinions. It now appears Waddell is determined to stretch this to the very upper limit reasonably possible, making it 500 years. But above all, he just seems to be determined to perpetuate the confusion surrounding the term "Celtic" with so much hand-waving, resorting to calling the mainstream view an "enduring belief" or "the traditional view", like a good fringe theorist should. I cannot help myself, I get the impression this is mainly about a British or Irish notion of "Celts are indigenous, and we will stretch the term to fit that truth no matter what".

Fwiiw, I fully endorse Waddell's general gist: there was a European trade network in the Late Bronze Age, 1300-800 BC. These 500 years set the stage for the Celts, and the Celts inherited Late Bronze Age culture, seamlessly (they didn't decide one morning "we're Celts now"). Unfortunately, that doesn't change the Late Bronze Age being Pre-Proto-Celtic, not "Celtic". The Late Bronze Age in Europe is extremely interesting in its own right, but I really don't understand why some authors feel the need to hook or crook extend the "Celts" moniker to this period.

Now, the upshot of this less than agreeable exchange appears to be,

• the mainstream view remains that Celticization is an Iron Age process, beginning around the 7th century BC.
• there is some confusion surrounding "Celts" as a linguistic vs. a fuzzy cultural and/or archaeological term
• there is a minority view that revives early 20th century notions of "Bronze Age Celts".

I will be happy to see these enlightening findings incorporated in the article. Much of this discussion would be more at home at Bronze Age Britain.

dab (𒁳) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Belgae

Miranda Green says philologists agree they spoke Celtic dialects [7], as does this from Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia [8]. Thus they fall into the lead definition of Celtic, and I am reverting the change in the map. If anyone wants to assert they were in no shape or form 'Celtic', let's see some reliable sources before changing the article please. Doug Weller (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well "no shape or form" is way OTT, but clearly JC excludes them from the category, and sees them as a distinct group, presumably because of significant cultural differences and their likely Germanic origins. It may be worth noting that. Paul B (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JC is differentiating but I don't think excluding. The encyclopdia page I've referenced gives another quote from Caesar's Gallic wars which says that "most of the Belgae descended from the Germani and crossed the Rhine in ancient times...". Miranda Green says JC is preserving a tradition of origins but clearly asserts that 'the significance of the term Germani in Caesar's time was not a linguistic one.' It isn't enough to be able to read JC's Gallic Wars and make arguments based on just a bare reading, we need to rely on what linguists, historians, archaeologists, etc think. The encyclopedia notes they had a late La Tène culture so we are not talking about significant cultural differences, and we know (my 2 sources and others I have read) about Celtic place names in Belgic territory. So although it is worth while noting with good sources these distinctions, the Belgae described in JC are Celtic speakers which is how the lead (correctly I think) defines Celtic. Doug Weller (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me what I already know and then repeating exactly what I suggested ("it is worth while noting with good sources these distinctions"). That the Belgae were speakers of Celtic languages has been standard opinion since the 1900s. That they had a sense of themselves as a disdtinct culture is not disputed either, any more than is the fact that ancient authors do not refer to Britons as Celts. All these things are worth noting without creating a pointless dispute over nothing. It's simply about pointing to the fact thatr words are used in complex ways. Paul B (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Paul, I thought I was just reaffirming what you were saying (the repetition should have had quotations marks I guess) and maybe slightly making sure we were in agreement. So long as we agree that things like the map should include the Belgae, I'm happy. Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. My prickle-response level was hieghtened due to exchanges on other pages. Paul B (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the Belgae references above which reveal the misunderstanding of how the Belgae could be mistaken as Celts. The excerpt within Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia [9] ironicaly uses Julius Caesar as the primary evidence. There were approx 21 tribes in Belgica(Between the Seine/Marne and the Rhine) as mentioned by Caesar. Only 3 of them were Celtic, the Remi, Suessiones and Catalauni. 5 tribes were solidly Germanii and 11 were Belgae related to the Germanii. The place name evidence is compelling in that all the "Celtic" place names mentioned in your reference...are only in the area of the 3 Celtic tribes. ie not a single Celtic name in any of the other 18 tribes in Belgica. Steven Oppenheimer has a map to demonstrate this on page 319 of "Origins of the British" (The references to La Tene/Halstatt can be ignored as archaelogical proof of Celts in Belgica. The linguistic evidence taken from modern Waloons and Flemish can also be argued both ways. ) The Belgae were overwhelmingly Germanic, with a small number Celtic. To describe them or include them as Celtic on maps is as misleading as describing the Spanish as English due to Gibralta.--92.4.58.196 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

the above dialogue establishes "how the Belgae could be mistaken as Celts", in your opinion, how? Paul and Doug have just agreed that, all things considered, "That the Belgae were speakers of Celtic languages has been standard opinion since the 1900s. That they had a sense of themselves as a disdtinct culture is not disputed either, any more than is the fact that ancient authors do not refer to Britons as Celts", with the request added to please stop creating a pointless dispute over nothing. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dab, Your post has not added to the discussion. Can you explain why Celtic place names are found only within 3 tribal areas of the Belgae(who Caesar himself describes as Celt). And why no Celtic place names are found within the other 18 areas. Also, why would Caesar describe them as Germanii, or related to the Germanii...if they were Celtic speaking? The evidence is compelling that the Belgae were overwhelmingly Germanic. The river Seine would naturally provide a border between Celts to the South and Germanic speakers to the North. I repeat, there are no Celtic place names, North of the Seine along the Atlantic coastal areas, which was the heart of Belgica. As would be expected there are scores of Celtic place names South of the Seine. I'd also like to know why you think the Belgae were specifically differentiated from the Gauls, if they spoke exactly the same language as them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.40.107 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is, as always with these things, when. If it's so "compelling" that the northern Belgae in the 1st century BC were Germanic speaking, it should be easy for you to establish that based on WP:RS, no problem. Since by the 1st c. BC, the Germanic expansion was in full swing, Germanic speaking Belgae in 55 BC does not imply they were already Germanic speaking in 150 BC. Our sources are divided on the time of the Germanization of the Low Countries. Putzger (1954) says the right bank of the Rhine was Germanic speaking by AD 100, Penguin (1988) says by 500 BC. It's open to debate. You want to contribute to the debate? Then present references that state the Belgae were Germanic-speaking, avoiding WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True, when is the key. You are accepting that the Belgae were Germanic in early Roman times. Now if the Belgae were indeed Germanii settlers in Roman Times then I am still wondering why Belgae is on your Celtic tribe map. Are you saying that there was a time when the people who called themselves Belgae were Celtic? Most would disagree and conclude they had another name. The term Belgae specifically refers to the Germanii who lived in the Low Lands around the time of JC. The other question unanswered is...If the North Seine area was Celtic before a Germanic invasion...then why are there no Celtic place names which we know often remain?? The conclusion must be that we can not yet verify who or what language was on the Atlantic coast of Belgica before the Germanii. It is as likely to have been Pre-Indo-European as it is to have been Celtic. --92.4.79.38 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am "accepting" nothing of the kind. I am saying you should cite your sources, and I will tell you whether I consider your sources as falling under WP:RS. I have no private opinion on this at all. As you can read right above, it has been standard practice to classify the Belgae as Celts by default since about 1900 or so. If mainstream opinion has changed, the burden is on you to establish the fact if you want the article to reflect it. Citing a source for your claim that " The term Belgae specifically refers to the Germanii who lived in the Low Lands around the time of JC." would be a good start. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dab doesn't need to explain anything. This is not an appropriate place for an argument like this. Your interpretation of JC is irrelevant, so please drop it. The article needs to reflect the opinions of modern scholars, not personal interpretations. Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, German linguist Harold Kuhn found very limited Celtic place names North of the Seine in Belgica and found many to the South. Former Oxford Professor of Celtic David Ellis Evans, in Gaulish Personal names, admits that Belgica was probably not Celtic speaking. Steven Oppenheimer is of the opinion that Belgica was predominantly Germanic overall. All references you have given refer to Belgica as being Germanic in one way or another at the time of Caesar. --92.3.249.92 (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant that the Belgae didn't speak a Celtic language. There are plenty of sources that say they do, so they get included as Celtic. If you have a reliable source that says differently, that can be added. But they can't be removed because of your interpretation of something. Doug Weller (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Caesar distinguishes them from both "Celts" and "Germans", saying they were alway fighting the latter. Cunliffe, in The Celts (2003) says that the most likely situation in Caesar's day was that "the territory between the Seine and the Rhine shared a cultural gradient between Celtic and Germanic that was constantly being reformed by tribal movements.". He describes it as "a 'Celtic' territory undergoing progressive Germanisation". (p.57). If you have specific references to what Evans et al say, than provide it so that we can have a precise account. Obviously detailed discussion should go in Belgae. But bear in mind that this is not some cometition between supporters of Germans and supporters of Celts! It's just about achieving accuracy. That's all. Paul B (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever objected to mentioning that "Harold Kuhn found very limited Celtic place names North of the Seine and found many to the South. David Ellis Evans, in Gaulish Personal names, conjectures that Belgica was probably not Celtic speaking." if properly referenced. No problem at all. In fact, it would be nice to have a dedicated article on Celtic placenames. The question of the linguistic history of the Low Countries may be most at home at Nordwestblock#Language_hypotheses. Wikipedia's coverage of toponymy is very weak, and I would thank you if you invested some effort in improving this. The Low Countries are a classic contact zone. To this day, it cannot be really decided whether Dutch is really German or North Sea Germanic... The same might hold for the Iron Age, and I can easily believe the language of the Low Countries in the Iron Age (prior to the 1st c. BC or so) was some sort of para-Celtic or undifferentiated or "intermediate" Italo-Celtic. I find this plausible, and the sources cited at Nordwestblock#Language_hypotheses support it, but we'll never know for sure, and it is still true that the Belgae are usually counted as Celts (if marginal Celts). dab (𒁳) 09:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The important point surely is not which side of this argument is mostly widely supported but that the matter is not properly established. This article should reflect the fact that while the Belgae have been taken to be Celtic, they may not have been and that there certainly was a mix of Celtic and Germanic elements in the Belgic zone. --Attatatta (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent events

This page as a rather peaceful history (only two four [10][11] archives so far), but recently there seems to be an increase in confused "Insular Celtic" national mysticism, apparently triggered by terminological confusion stirred up by Oppenheimer et al. What may be going on here could conceivably be related to the ideological rambling that has gone unchecked at Modern Celts for some time[12]. If this trend persists, this article may need to be watched by more, and more sceptical, eyes. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'm a bit concerned about the images used in the infobox. What definition of "Celt" are we alluding to? Are these people verifiably celts? Do these people (verifiably) self-identify as Celts? Does being from (and by from, do we mean born or lived?) a Celtic nation automatically mean you're a Celt? Does being not from a Celtic nation disclude you as a Celt? - the issue is complex.

Talking specifically about the modern, living people who have been depicted, I think we're making a mistake enforcing indentities upon people who may not necessarily agree with that lable. It may also be against the spirit of WP:BLP. Can we have a rethink about this? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Scrap that - I noticed the problem was brand new. I've reverted the infobox outright per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

'the people of Stonehenge'

section moved to Talk:Beaker_culture. dab (𒁳) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Celts

the term celts only apppered in the late 18th century and as such i dont think it should be used in tis article as it is not the correct term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.243.78 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

how so? This is a 21st century encyclopedia project, and I do hope we're allowed to use post-medieval terminology. dab (𒁳) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. After all the term "Crohn's disease" only appeared in the 1930s but the disease has been around for a lot longer than that. This is a similar case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What i mean is that this name wasnt used until the late 18th C.I think we should use the name they used for themselves. Luke12345abcd (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? And which name are you proposing we use instead? garik (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally do that. We generally use the English name for the people. For instance the French call themselves "Les Français" and the Germans call themselves, "Das Deutsche Volk" but the English Wikipedia uses the standard English names for them, "The French" and "The Germans". With Europeans (or Celts) it's even more complex because not all Europeans (or Celts) speak (spoke) the same language, so they don't even agree on what to call themselves. In that case the only workable idea is to use the English name in the English Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We're going to need to put something in the article about this, it comes up so regularly. It appears to stem from people reading Simon James but not understanding him, or reading third-hand bad journalism about what he actually said, which was that nobody referred to the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as "Celts" until the 18th century - not that the term suddenly came into being or was invented out of whole cloth then. Greek Keltoi and Latin Celtae, from which English "Celts" derives, are attested from ancient times, and according to Caesar Celtae was the name the largest group we now call "Celts" used for themselves. Modern scholars have simply extended the term a bit, to apply to other peoples who spoke related languages, including those in Britain and Ireland. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Origins attested to by DNA/RNA

Or Challenges to Classic View

These are cut and paste statements from the Celtic Nations page, where it was first mentioned. I admit to not being an expert in the field of the origion of the Celts, though have a deep interest in the Celtic Nations. My question is why hasn't these views also represented in the artical in more detail?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious edits?

We seem to have picked up some intriguing edits from an anon in the last couple of days. I'm not au fait enough witrh current research to know if this is genuine, but at first site it appears to be very spurious. If someone with more info can confirm/deny the veracity of this it'd be much appreciated! Grutness...wha? 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious looking indeed. I've removed it as unsourced for now. —Angr 05:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read large parts of the book in question, and idea is that what we know of as "Celtic" in fact has its origions in north Spain.... the author goes on to illustrate how migrations from northern Spain - through the west cost of the Aquitaine, then Brittany, then up to Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, then Scotland- is demonstrated by the high percentage of DNA markers with simularities with the Basques and others in Northern Spain (as opposed to DNA/RNA markers with the residents now inhabiting the traditional location of Central Europe, which you would expect some residue DNA/RNA markers even in subsumed populations). It is known that trade and the exchange of ideas existed along this route on the Atlantic seaboard, from Spain all the way to the lands bordering Irish Sea, to a much greater degree then hitherto recognized.

In essense, the idea the author proposes has recent DNA and RNA evidence to back him up, and I feel it should be included. The author only states that the origion has been mis-identified as in the Alps, and rather proposes that it was in Celti-Iberia, based on DNA and RNA evidence.

HOWEVER, the edits removed say that it is widely accepted now, or is becoming widely accepted, but this I do not know to be true. That would be my only 'however'. Removing the statement that it is 'widely becoming accepted' would be my only recommendation. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The genetic evidence point has been used previous to demonstrate genocide/forced migration by other authors (I am not at home so cannot check). That links to the linguistic evidence that English eliminated Welsh (to use modern language) names far more effectively than it did elsewhere in the world. That would imply settlement into a space with no previous knowledge, to be named anew. I agree with Drachenfyre, it is cited but claims such as "widely accepted" are not. --Snowded TALK 13:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent this is even relevant to this article. If there's an alternative to the conventional theory that the Celts originated with the Hallstatt Culture just north of the Alps, surely Celts is the right article for it, not here. —Angr 14:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the tendency to equate genetic history with language history. It's an equation that's full of problems. Also what's this stuff about Anatolian Celtic being German. As far as I know Galatian is attested, albeit poorly. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk

I've moved the following becauase it seems misplaced and confused. Looking at the edit history it seems that this section was added by one editor and then moved to create a new section by another one - in a way that seemed to suggest that later sections, on archaeology and history, were subsections of a larger "challenge" to the "classic view" - which they are not. Of this section some of the first sentences seem to be copied from the Treveri article. The nexct sentence then completely contradicts the previous one. The paragraph doesn't seem to be clear whether its saying that the Treveri and Galatians both spoke German or whether "Celtic" was a fluid concept that was not rigidly defined by language. The footnotes also become vague and sloppy at this point. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Challenging the classic view

Very few references to the language of the Celts are found in ancient ethnography. Jerome (AD 342-419) in his commentary on St Paul's epistle to the Galatians notes that the language of the Anatolian Galatians in his day was still very similar to the language of the Treveri. St Jerome probably had first-hand knowledge of these Celtic languages, as he had visited both Augusta Treverorum and Galatia. Remarkable is that the Treveri spoke a German language Those remarks are enough for some scientists to challenge the ethnic and linguistic unity of the Celts . The new theory states that 'Celticity' would only refer to the culture, that there was no common language and certainly no ethic unity.

You were right to remove it from the article. It claims the Treveri spoke a Germanic language, based on Strabo's statement that they claimed Germanic ancestry. Do we have to write "Language is not genetic" in great big letters at the top of every section of the article to discourage edits like these? They seem absolutely impossible to stop.

"Gender and Sexual Norms" Section

There seems to be quite a large debate over what is included in this section, but I put the question forward to you that it should be totally removed. I can see no reason at all why something so unimportant is being included in an article about all aspects of this ethnic group. Also, if it were to be kept it would certainly need to be revised as it is clear that this heading is made just for the purpose of trying to give useless information a sort of legitimacy in an overreaching article. I'll go ahead and do this unless someone can give me a reason otherwise. TheXenocide (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second... this is idiotic. First of all, the majority of the important sources here are not even reachable, consisting not of links, which clearly are not legitimate citations, and those which are show information which is based on Roman times, not past this. This clearly does not belong here, as Celts were not unique if (and I say if, as none of this information can be said to be truly reliable) they did indeed practice pedastry during this time period. I'm removing the part in the section about pedastry. TheXenocide (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why this article should not discuss this, nor any obvious reason why you proclaim gender and sexual behaviour to be "unimportant". As for your comment that the section has "information which is based on Roman times, not past this", yes of course it does. Most of the article is about the period of "Roman times" and before it. That's where our information comes from. The citations are to scholarly literature. That is not only legitimate it is often preferable to weblinks. Paul B (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say that we do have very few articles on ethnic groups that sport "gender and sexual norms" sections. Why should the Celts article have such a section? This is part of a larger topic of societal norms, and I see no reason why the article should harp on "gender" so much. I am not saying the material is invalid, but I do feel sexuality is given undue focus. To my mind, the emergence of a "sexuality" section is a direct result of the Celts being considered "sexy" in popular culture. At least, the part of the ToC reading "6 Society: 6.1 Clothing, 6.2 Gender and sexual norms" is unintentionally comic ("Celts are gay"). --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the issue of gender relations is, I think, important since this is much discussed in both popular and scholarly literature on the Celts, especially the suggestion that women had more freedom and power in Celtic culture than in other ancient cultures. This is certainly discussed in scholarly literature, and has manifested itself at the popular level in some of the more "new age" idealizations of the Celts as sexually "liberated". The material on sexuality is linked to this issue. Obviously we don't want to endorse new age fantasies about Celts, but it is surely appropriate to include material that discusses the known facts on which these ideas are built. Paul B (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

by all means, I agree the material is valid. My comment concerned article structure, not content. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Celt article was vandalized three times in the last five years by people who used the Atheaneus / Poseidonius quote to claim definitively that the Celts specifically practiced pederasty (this section was originally titled pederasty). This kind of vandalism is not at all unusual in Wikipedia, as I'm sure most people are aware. I reverted one of those edits in 2006 or 2007 and provided some of the current references which are now in the article, simply in the interest of having a relatively balanced and accurate Wikipedia article and because they were clearly vandalism. Paul got involved late in the discussion the second time I edited one of these entries, and we argued about the section. Paul made an accusation that I have an 'obsession' with pedophilia at that time and claimed that pedophilia and pederasty were not the same thing. I don't know if they are but according to the current wikipedia article pederasty means "an erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family" which overlaps with the definition of pedophilia. I don't know if Paul is a French speaker if he is it is possible his confusion here stems from confusion between the French and English definitions of the term (Pederast).

I felt since his edit that the article did not accurately reflect the best information on the subject but since the direct Pederasty / Pedophilia claims had been removed (with only implications remaining) I really didn't care that much about it and didn't think it was worth getting into a personal battle with someone who was going to start making accusations implying that I was bigoted in some way.

But I think it's time to point out that the way the Celt article is currently written (and has remained written for a couple of years now) places undue weight on Paul Barlow's personal interpretation of Celtic sexual practices. I think it actually qualifies as original research. Certain (Greek) sources repeated the single fragmentary claim of one individual Greek author (Poseidonius) which now dominates the description on gender and sexual norms in the Wiki.

Poseidonius book on the Celts no longer exists other than a few fragments from other authors so we can't review it, but as far as I know in comprehensive sources by authors with direct contact with the Celts in later years (Julius Caesar, Tacitus) do not describe anything remotely similar nor is there apparently a single description of such practices in any of the surviving insular literature of the people we now call "Celts". I had pointed this out in the article but Paul Barlow changed that to read 'There are no direct sources from ancient Celtic cultures to confirm or contradict these statements'. Which is placing undue weight on the notion that they existed - analagous to supporting 'There are no direct Hindu sources to confirm or contradict' the idea that India was populated by one-legged Monocoli who napped in the shade of their single foot, which had been claimed by Pliny and repeated by certain other Classical and Medieval authors.

More significantly the expert Rankin who Paul cited in his restructuring of the article himself dismisses the notion that these actually were sexual practices of the Celts and believed the Greeks may have been describing bonding rituals such as those described in various Irish myth cycles. Paul apparently disagreed with Rakin so he edited the Celt article to imply that Rankin was incorrect (putting Rankins comment in quotes). To me that is original research.

I haven't read through the entirety of Tacitus Agricola and Caesars Galic Wars recently to verify this, but if these claims are not repeated in those sources I think it's incorrect to state as a fact that "this was the consensus of Classical antiquity" although Rankin does make that claim, because not all sources describe these practices, though they do mention other things like aggressive women, head hunting and human sacrifice etc. It is correct to state in the article that Rankin believes this however.

I think the article misrepresents Rankin on this issue more generally though, this is a good example of why lay people don't always interpret primary source data as well as experts. Bonding rituals do not necessarily include sexual practices or even homoeroticism at all. In the Irish Sagas for example Chieftains are described as laying their head in the lap of St. Patrick during greeting. There is nothing sexual about it in that context, it is a sign of submission because he was deemed a Holy Man. Similarly, sleeping in the same bed did not necessarily mean having sex, it may have more to do with a shortage of beds. In insular literature of cultures where men openly had sex with boys or other men it was prominently described, lauded, praised, or sometimes criticized as a vice or a bad habit. This is true of the Classical Greeks, the Romans, the Samurai, the medieval Arabs, the Ottomans etc. In cultures where there was less openness about such (obviously universal) practices (say in the Icelandic sagas) it was not discussed, except in the form of insults. That is the point I was originally making about the insular literary sources.

Currently as the article is written seems heavily weighted toward a personal POV, in my opinionDrifter bob (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from classical sources to justify assertions about ancient history is not "vandalising", it's normal practice. To pervert language in this way is indicative of an irrationally held position. Of course pederasty and paedophilia are not the same, and of course they overlap. Pederasty exclusively refers to adolescent-adult male-male relationships. Paedophilia refers to a sexual interest in children of either sex of any age. In fact there isoverwhelming evidence that Monoculi do not and never have existed. There isoverwhelming evidence that pederasty has, so there is simply no analogy. Your argument would mean would have to reject everything that any ancient author ever said, simply because some of them make wild claims about exotic beings. We do not conclude that Caesar was never murdered because the classical sources also include descriptions of supernatural portents. In any case, this is not about saying what is true. We don't know what's true. We report what sources say and what modern scholars think about them. You are misrepresenting Rankin when you say he "dismisses the notion that these actually were sexual practices of the Celts". He never does any such thing. As I recall, he makes no comparison with "Irish myth cycles" either. Did you just add that suggestion yourself? He speculates that bonding rituals may be being described, but that's all. Hence, I quoted him. His words are "in quotes" as you put it, because they are a quotation! Your last paragraph is just your personal opinions, most of which are wholly irrelevant to pre-Christian continental Celts. There's no reason to believe that Samauri or stories of laying one's head in St Patrick's lap tell us much about the sexual practices ancient continental Celts. You say "lay people don't always interpret primary source data as well as experts". That's exactly why your personal speculations are largely irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The vandalizing of the article occurred before you got involved in the discussion, you or someone else can easily verify this by reviewing the old edits. The article was changed to read that the Celts definitively practiced pederasty, which the evidence clearly does not indicate one way or the other. It was agenda driven vandalism. As for what the precise boundary is between pederasty and pedophilia, your interpretation does not match my understanding (or the current Wiki article on the subject) but I frankly could care less. As you say, my personal speculations are irrelevant, as are yours, neither should be in the article. Unfortunately the way you edited the article, including precisely where you put your quotes clearly for emphasis on the Rankin reference, reflects your personal interpretation, not the best aggregation of the data. The way the article currently reads (and has for over a year now) is frankly ridiculous, and you can take credit for that. I think the only reason it hasn't been challenged by someone in Academia is that they aren't for the most part using the term 'Celt' any more preferring to focus on La Tene or Halstadt cultures and etc. and the fashion in Academic circles today for some reason is to avoid using the Classical literary sources at all. Drifter bob (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Drifter bob and it is pleasant to see another who recognises the ramifications and implications of what has been going on at Wikipedia. Look at the issues about James I of England (oh...check the talk page and archives!!!) and you will find homosexual propagandists violating WP:TEND and WP:WEIGHT, as well as WP:NOR. Who believes homosexual activism is angelic and impervious to the same standards as anybody else? Is it because they believe they are their own gift to humanity and all they do is unquestionable? Well, neo-nazi activists, Arab and Israeli activists, racial egalitarians, Irish Republicans, Balkanists and other Central/East European ethnics affected by Habsburg history, use Wikipedia for their field days. What is so different about identifying homosexual "activism for social progress"? Yes, follow the edit histories of User:Haiduc and User:Engleham, even from their very first excursions on Wikipedia; what you will find is a persistent infusion of homosexuality in most, if not all of their edits! Is there nothing else to read and write about? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

lost treasures of the ancient world

the link for that video is dead hear is a live one http://www.guba.com/watch/2000900523 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.78 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

error?

In the Origins section, third paragraph, where it says "The spread of the Celtic languages to Iberia, Ireland and Britain would have occurred during the first half of the 1st millennium," I feel like it should be "the first half of the 1st millennium BC". I would change it myself but have no knowledge in the area; but based on the context, it seems to make more sense as "BC". Either way, if it's AD it should say so, to improve clarity. Trippinbtm (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The huts take seven months to build by the women of the village. They are built of branches, twigs, grass, and cow dung and urine formed into a plaster and applied to a branch frame. When the mixure dries in the sun it is as strong a cement and does not smell. Generally they cannot stand up inside and the only openings are that of the doorway and a small opening in the roof or wall which allows smoke from a continually smoldering fire inside to escape. The fire is used on which to cook and to keep the family warm during the rainy season. Dried cow dung is used as the fuel for the fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.73.133 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uolcae

Why does the map not include the territory of the Uolcae Tectosages and Arecomicî? What evidence is there for excluding them as a celtic people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.234.247 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not excluded. The former are listed in this map, which is in the article and which also includes the territory of the Arecomici. The lead map is, of course, an over-simplification since information is fuzzy, and tribal territories were shifting all the time, but it seems to include most of the relevant territory. The Arecomici capital is excluded, but this was contested territory. In a map like this contested territories will be either "in" or "out", so it's bound to be rough and ready. Can you explain your problem more fully? Paul B (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Contested between whom? An Iberian people? My problem is merely the exclusion of the Uolcae from the map at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.233.74 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably by Basques. If you want to edit the map you can do so. It's been edited several times already. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Steel question

The article says: " Celtic warriors are described by Polybius and Plutarch as frequently having to cease fighting in order to straighten their sword blades. Noric steel, steel produced in Noricum, was famous in the Roman Empire period and was used to equip the Roman military[59]."

Does the second explain why the Celts' swords were bent by Roman swords, or does the second contradict the first? --ReneJohnsen (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

These are just two factoids joined together unhappily. They are independent. This also reflects the constant misconception (by implication) that there was such a thing as "the Celts" in the sense of a unified nation, let alone state or empire. If the Celts in Austria made good steel it doesn't follow automatically that the Celts raiding Delphi didn't have swords worth shit. This is a bit like stating that "the Americans" in California produce nanotechnology and then acting surprised at "the Americans" in the Midwest practically living in the Dark Ages. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point but we do also have metalurgical analysis of both Roman and La Tene swords from a fairly wide range (many La Tene swords have been found all over Central and Western Europe, Spain and the British Isles.) And the La Tene are generally of better steel (or iron with at least some carbon content, frequently pattern welded), while many Roman swords were actually iron. Though there are also some steel roman swords which seem to have better heat treatments (tempering). It's worth pointing this out in the article perhaps. Drifter bob (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

you are right, but the question is when exactly. The La Tene period spans half a millennium, from the early Roman Republic to the early Roman Empire. Obviously Rome made tremendous progress in terms of military technology during that time, among other things indeed by adopting Ferrum Noricum. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

True it's not only a matter of both specific time but also place since the material culture of the Spanish Celts doesn't seem to precisely fit either La Tene or Hallstadt typologies, it's more like somewhere in between. Though they did seem to also have good steel. It's always hard to generalize, but I tend to view the Roman claims of bent swords with suspicion. I am not aware of any inferior 'celtic' swords in the archeological record, I know of quite a few Roman ones. 98.164.74.131 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the wide range of Celtic groups across Europe it would be rather surprising if every man in every tribe had a high quality sword. Also, Polybius is not a Roman, though he is describing the Battle of Telamon between Romans and Gauls. [13] It's not clear what Polybius means, but he seems to be arguing that Roman tactics were altered to take account of a perceived weakness in Cisalpine Gallic use of weaponry. He certainly claims that Celtic swords at this time were good for cutting but not thrusting and that they quickly bent. Plutarch's comments come in his Life of Marcus Furius Camillus, [14] so he is referring to a much earlier period. Maybe Polybius' account confuses the records of this earlier period with the later one, or is influenced by earlier Greek experience of wars with Celts. It's been suggested that the bent sword idea derives from deliberately bent 'decommissioned' swords used in graves. See Vagn Fabritius Buchwald, Iron and steel in ancient times, 2005, p.127. Paul B (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see that some of this is discussed in Iron Age sword, to which I've added the Buchwald citation. There is some discussion of bending of early swords there, which may be related to the length of Celtic swords in contrast to the shorter Greek and Roman weapons and the fact that they were used for slashing rather than jabbing. The later evidence concerning Viking swords suggests that this continued to be a problem centuries later. Paul B (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman swords were used for cutting as well as thrusting (jabbing is something you do in boxing) the battlefield debut of the Gladius hispaniensis in Macedonia, famously horrified witnesses who noted the severed arms and legs strewn about. Of course Iron can bend, but there is little archeological evidence that Polybius account is accurate, in fact the only bent Celtic swords I am aware of in the historical record were clearly bent intentionally as 'sacrifice' offerings in pools and lakes etc (as is mentioned in the Iron Age swords article) a practice also done with Bronze weapons during the Hallstadt era Drifter bob (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me what I've already stated about intentional bending. The comment about the word jabbing is petty point-scoring. It's a normal word in English, not a technical term exclusive to boxing. It means "to thrust; to poke roughly; to stab" (OED). The central points are the methods of fighting and size of swords. No doubt Polybius's report is exaggerated and highly over-simplified, but it's not completely absurd. In any case, he's essentially repeating the smug Greco-Roman cliché that Celts were brave but chaotic and that Roman efficiency and forethought could outwit their ultimately self-defeating slashing and bashing. Polybius's account is a standard parable of civilised culture trouncing drunken barbarians. The fact that early long bladed swords could bend was clearly a genuine problem. It's also worth noting that bending is preferable to breaking, as Peirce and Oakeshott note in Swords of the Viking age, "a bending failure offers a better chance of survival for the sword's weilder than the breaking of the blade...there was a need to build a fail-safe into the construction of a sword to favor bending over breaking" (p.145), so it's possible that bending under severe stress was built-in even in an earlier period. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out that jabbing is not generally a term used in fencing, martial arts or in military history in the context of swords, I thought it would avoid confusion to use commonly accepted terminology, take it or leave it. I'm aware of the Trope favored by Polybius I just think it may be a mistake to conflate it as accurate evidence in this case, since archeological record does not validate his claim. To the contrary we know that Celtic swords were actually made of steel or 'steely iron' far more often than Roman swords which were more commonly iron. While the related Trope of a thrusting weapon being superior to a predominantly cutting or slashing weapon is worth examining in the case of Roman and Celtic interaction, the idea that the shorter Roman (originally Celtic / Celtiberian) gladius was categorically more efficient than the longer Celtic type sword is undermined by the fact that the Romans themselves adopted the longer weapon now referred to as a Spatha by modern scholars in the late Republican period, first for cavalry then for infantry as well. In fact spathae made using techniques pioneered by the Celts (pattern welding etc.) became the standard sidearm of the Legionaire and eventually replaced the Gladius. I think the 'thrusting vs. cutting' argument, (in spite of the fact that both the spatha and the gladius could both cut and thrust) is a Victorian remnant of Classical fencing theory, and of dubious merit. The reality is very complex, and has to do with training, tactics, other kit such as armor, as well as the widely ranging qualities of metalurgy and manufacturing techniques throughout Iron Age Europe and the Mediterranean. But I don't think we should make definitive statements on this in the article at this point, Polybius remark should be balanced by the other evidence. Drifter bob (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, it seems that the archaeological evidence does support Polybius, at least to a significant extent. The most comprehensive discussion of the archaeological evidence is in Radomir Pleiner's The Celtic Sword (1993), which contains detailed discussions of all Celtic swords analysed by that date. A significant number were of relatively poor quality. Pleiner is unconvinced by the the theory that Polybius was misled by decommissioned swords (first proposed in 1906, apparently). He states that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle." (p.159). So, essentially he concludes that Polybius's account is exaggerated, but based on a truth about the way that the swords would have behaved in battle. Paul B (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In the light of the evidence, I've added material to Iron Age sword. It's all pretty marginal here, but in the light of Pleiner's account, it seems as though the changes I made earlier may have given too much weight to the sceptics. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting conclusion to draw, I'll have to see what I can add to this. Drifter bob (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The question IMO is actually not whether there were ever any swords of 'poor quality' made by Celts, it's A) whether there is archeological evidence that Celtic swords failed in battle, and B) whether there is any evidence that Celtic swords were inferior in any way to Roman swords, or to swords used by any other people at that time. Saying that "30% of swords were of poor quality" is somewhat nebulous outside of any context. Drifter bob (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok not trying to win any points here I just though some people in this discussion might find this interesting, and a more nuanced understanding of how the metalurgy and forging techniques interract. I was told on a forum (do not have a source for this yet) that Celtic weapons had large amounts of phosphorous. This apparently helps in the process of case hardening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_hardening#History which is something we know the Celts practiced as part of early pattern welding techniques. The Norse and Finns also did the same thing when forging knives and swords, they used bird dung and bone to introduce phosphorous. I'm going to try to find some sources for this, I found an online Academic journal which has a lot of information but it's going to take a while to wade through Drifter bob (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)