Talk:Celt/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barbarism

--80.156.43.1 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC) It would be quite wrong to think of the Celts as barbaric brutes. Although they had not reached the heights of the classical civilisations, and were mostly illiterate, their intricate metalwork and well-organised social system are evidence of a high degree of development. From the third century B.C. to the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar, the Gauls even minted their own coinage which were no less impressive than the Roman.

The foregoing probably needs a rewrite. This is for a number of reasons, mostly NPOV. The Celts looked down on the culture of literacy, and saw their own oral, bardic tradition as being superior and demanding of a greater degree of skill. The classical civilisations which seem to be so vaunted were themselves deeply barbarian in deed: the Romans, for example, gave us such civilised values as bread and circus, enslavement, mass genocide (Carthago delenda est); the Celts, conversely, were basically a peaceful agrarian and non-expansionist, environmentally-friendly outfit. We could learn a great deal from the Celts... sjc

Well, except for the human sacrifice bits. That we can leave behind. Despite that qualification, I agree. An unhelpful last paragraph. --MichaelTinkler
Well, yes, but even that is open to a bit of debate... sjc

The Celts were not an essentially peaceful civilization, or at least not all of them were. Whenever the classical civilizations run into them, we see a war-like and aggressive people, and here I am thinking in particular of the Galatians who spent a very long time marauding in central Anatolia, much like the Scythians before them. And there is little doubt that they practiced slavery - not on the large scale the Romans did, but it should be noted the Romans considered that to be merciful, since most people at the time simply killed their enemies when they had defeated them. Better to say that the Greeks and Romans weren't nice either. --JG

Well, the classical civilisations were writing the history... with their own agendas at the forefront. This is probably worth an article in its own right, Josh, so I'll have a look at it in the morning - I'm absolutely bushed at the moment. sjc

Later: the Galatians are a notable exception. But enslavement was low down on the Celtic list: they were more likely to be enslaved than slavers. I am beginning to think that my initial take was probably +/- 10% a good call. sjc

You see the Celts in Gaul doing an awful lot of marauding, too. The Romans may have exaggerated their ferocity or some such, but there is no doubt that they sacked Rome, attacked Marseilles, and so forth. Agragarian peoples can be quite aggressive, the Vikings being a good example. What evidence leads you to believe the Galatians were exceptional?

As for slavery, I don't know how widespread it was among Celtic society. Certainly it never reached the level of Roman latifundia, as even Greece had not, and individual groups had much smaller influence here. But if I recall correctly the workers in Celtic mines tended to be slaves, so it existed on some scale.

Gaul was an occupied nation under the Romans and Caesar's account in the Gallic Wars tends to overstate the case to emphasise the effectiveness of his campaigns. What we actually have here is an early form of guerrilla warfare, usually harrying Roman armies on the move northwards against the Germanic nations, early international cooperation. Of course, most resistance against an army as brutal and efficient as the Roman military machine was a bit on a par with the Afghanis v. USA & Britain. The Gauls not only took a heavy hit militarily, but lost in the propaganda stakes.
Marauding occurred but to say that it was a way of life for the Gauls is to misrepresent them: they typically fought back in order to protect themselves from enslavement and Roman provocations: plunder, rapine and widespread depredation. There is plenty of evidence to substantiate this.
On the subject of enslavement in mines, I have seen little archaeological evidence to date. It did occur but it was peoples who had been conquered; since, as I have already argued, the Celts were generally peaceable, this would indicate that it would have been on a relatively small scale, unlike the Romans and Greeks who ran empires on the back of it. Slavery goes against the generally sophisticated nature of Celtic societiessjc

As opposed to the generally sophisticated nature of the Greek and Roman societies? I don't think there was a single people in the ancient world who had any real qualms about slavery. I do agree, though, that the Celts practiced it on a relatively small scale. They conquered a lot fewer people (the classical civilizations also tended to enslave mainly defeated peoples, with debt slavery before this really got going).

With regards to marauding, I'm not thinking about the time period when they were in danger of invasion, but the one before that. There is absolutely no way that the Gauls sacking Rome was self-defence and I find it hard to believe that the Romans would have been idiotic enough to provoke such an attack, when the Gauls terrified them. Other attacks occur around the periphery of the Celtic world all the time, though the only one I am really familiar with is the invasion of the Galatians. But you haven't given a reason that they should be considered exceptional.

The Gallic Celts did smash the Etruscan empire and then Rome itself around 390-387 B.C. but this was just a case of getting their retribution in early :-). Seriously, the early stages of Celtic assertion were necessarily violent, they were just establishing themselves in the face of ruthless opposition; my reading of it is that they were merely protecting their corner. Other Celtic tribes pushed further east and were met by Alexander the Great on the Danube in 335-334 B.C. in a peaceful conference, and achieved an intelligent accommodation.
It was not until after Alexander's death and some serious provocation that the Celts invaded Greece and sacked the Oracle at Delphi, going on to establish the state of Galatia. About 20,000 Celts first entered what became Galatia in 278 B.C., under the pretense and invitation of one area king at war with another. The early presence of the Celtic "horde" in this region has rightly been characterized as marauding and given to plunder. Eventually they settled down and built fortified villages, and aligned themselves with local kings.
The point I am making is that once established, the generality of Celtic behaviour was to act pragmatically and intelligently. sjc

Ah, once established. Ok, with that large qualification, there is no disagreement on my part. Lots of groups started out very aggressive and then settled down to form nice, relatively peaceful communities - for instance the Scandinavians, the Magyars, the Turks, and such and such. Btw, Rome interpreted itself as merely protecting its corner throughout its entire long expansion, as did Japan in world war II. One should be careful about using that to defend attackers.

Yes, we insular Celts tend to overlook the misbehaviour of our continental cousins 2500 thousand years ago or so. But then we are historically more sinned against than sinning. sjc

To which I say bleah. The modern people speaking Celtic languages have no doubt changed considerably in composition since the ancient Celts, and indeed it has been suggested that some of the groups speaking such languages of old were not actually related to the people of La Tene, notably the Britons. Going the other way, the French doubtless have a lot of blood in common with the Gauls, but speak a Romance language. You can't maintain that an ancient people and a modern people are the same, and keeping score is silly.

Er, that last was a light-hearted aside. But as you seem intent on taking it seriously, I will. The Celtic nations were not an ethnic grouping and I would certainly never suggest such an ethnic commonality with the La Tene people. The Celts were (and still are) principally a cultural agglomeration. I am Cornish; my surname is an anglicisation of a Breton placename (not entirely uncommon in Cornwall either). Not all French speak French (nor do all of them consider themselves French); many Bretons, for example do not. Not all British people speak English or consider themselves English. I and many of my friends speak Cornish. Welsh people speak Welsh. Irish people speak Eirse. Scots speak Scots gaelic. We have culture in abundance and while we may not have freedom from cultural imperialism we are an awfully persistent collection of peoples... sjc

Oops! The intent should have been obvious, and I apologize for taking the comments the way I did. I'm just concerned that you're viewing the history of the Celts through some very colored glasses. They have had their pluses and their minuses, just like everyone else. Sorry.

No problems, Josh. I am also sceptical. My glasses are not as rosy coloured as you might believe, though: they're black, coated with black. It comes of studying history... sjc

La Tene refeences

Can somebody with more knowledge than I add references to the La Tene and Hallstatt cultures? --corvus13

If you insist... sjc

Galatia, etc.

If Gallia was Gaul to the Romans, then how are Galicia and Galatia also Gaul? I've just never made the connection before...doesn't mean I'm right, just very curious. or is the implication that they were also Celtic? JHK

The implication is exactly so. The Celtic spread was very diverse. sjc

Celt -- the tool

from Celt/kelt: When the ancient Greeks encountered these people, which usually involved male warriors of the two cultures, the Kelts were mounted on horse back and wielded a short axe weapon. At the time, the Greek word kelt refered to the short axe like hammers these warriors used. Therefore, the word kelt then became the reference to these particular people.

Also Celtic refers to a way of life or a culture rather than any particular group or nationality.

I agree with the above statement - the last one - but I'm confused. The entry for "Celts" appears to be blank. Or am I looking in the wrong place? Or is this another bug? I can't believe all the above debate has been generated and there is still no content. Deb


I have added the definitions of Celt, Gauls, Welsh etc. BTW the fact that nineteenth century antiquaries called a cetain type of Bronze age axe a "kelt" has got nothing to do with the "Celts" however you define them. One has to be carefull throughout to use the term in its strict linguistic context, if not we descend quickly into ethnicity and racism. For example there is no provable link from the Unfield culture and a Celtic language. We must remember that the existance of an Urnfield "people" is a supposition which archaeologists are unable to substantiate. gallia


Simon James of Durham University has written that;

"MILLIONS of people around the world think of themselves as Celtic and believe that their remote ancestors in the British Isles were Celts too.

But many British prehistorians now argue that the idea that the pre-Roman peoples of the isles were Celts is misleading and probably just wrong. Why? One fundamental, startling reason, is that no-one in Britain or Ireland called themselves 'Celts' before 1700.

Our earliest evidence for the identities of these peoples - the 2,000-year-old writings of their Greco-Roman neighbours - records Celts only on the continent, most notably the Gauls of modern France. The inhabitants of the isles were already called "British" and "Irish", and these were distinguished from the continental 'Celts'."

According to Denikin (http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/showthread.aspx?m=63348) "A conclusion reached in 1924 by Waddell (The Phoenician Roots of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons), a book well worth reading if the subject is of interest."

Accordingly, How can we have a discussion about the use of the word "Celt", if it does not apply to Britain before 1700 CE?

Ron Hughes

Wishful thinking

I removed

which was harmonious with nature

This is modern wish-ful thinking, and perilously close to indulging in the noble savage fallacy. The Celts managed to deforest and pollute almost as efficently as modern cultures. Examanation of middens makes it very clear that within a given locality an animal was frequently hunted to the point of local extinction. DigitalMedievalist 03:52, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

'Celt'

Please note that an article exists at 'Celt' that needs to be merged into this one and redirected here. Angela. 22:40, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Celts in Britain

Surely it is now accepted that there were no such people as the "Celts" in Britain,(cf Simon James) and that the preRoman population would actually be the post ice age indigenous population. Or what do you imagine happened to them?

Anne Wareham

There were however Celtic speakers in Britain. We know for a fact that the languages spoken in Britain when the Romans arrived included both Goidelic and Brythonic Celtic langauges. We know that all of the Celtic languages were and are closely related and share a common ancestor. We do not know what languages the Neolithic peoples spoke. And no, it isn't widely accepted--there are at least three camps willing and able to engage in scholarly brawling at the drop of an axe. The article is largely neutral--it emphasized the linguistic data, which is not in question, and makes it clear that there isn't universal agreement regarding Neolithic / versus invasions. Simon, and even Malcolm Crawford, have no quibble with linguistic identification of Celts as a group, merely the assumption that there was a single unified "Celtic culture." But they are still a minority, even among archaeologists, with most favoring a moderate stance along the lines of Barry Cunliffe. DigitalMedievalist 21:29, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

Cunliffe's Iron Age Britain (Batsford, 2004) begins by laying out the arguments against the outdated concept of the Celtic invasion of the British Isles. Page 16:
If the current, widely held, view is correct that Britain escaped the impact of folk movement from the Continent in the first millennium BC...it remains to explain the nature of the similarities seen between the material assemblages of the British Isles and those of Continental Europe
I feel you do Simon James a disservice by calling his view a minority amongst archaeologists. Cunliffe goes on to state that linguistic research now considers 'Celtic' languages to predate any Celtic folk movement out of central Europe and trade links can easily explain the connexions shown in the archaeological record. This view is firmly held by the processualist archaeologists in Britain who consider invasion theory to be a throwback to discredited culture historical approaches. adamsan 22:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've also heard that the Celts (in my words)"didn't know how to swim" - that is to say, (in other people's words) they didnt built capable boats and did not went into to the sea. Thought they made influence on the British isles. Now I undestand why there is so much fuss on this, people used the Celtic thing for nationalistic issues and why these people in particular seems to be so popular between English speakers. They were important because of the migrations they made in continental Europe. -Pedro 17:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where and what is this evidence that the people living in Britain at the time were not actually Celts, they spoke a very similar language, had very similar culture and laws and were the same genetically.--Rhydd Meddwl 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous

An an indigenous people of central Europe? Really? They didn't migrate from elsewhere? RickK 05:24, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they did migrate from Asian steppes, just as all Indo-Europeans did. They reached in about 800 BC Northern Transylvania and Dobrogea and by 600 BC they already conquered the Western Europe (France, parts of Spain). See: http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter113.html Bogdan | Talk 11:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, can we cut the crap already? If I had a nickel every time I heard somebody confusing language with genetics (and both with ethnic identity) (and all three with material culture), I'd be able to retire. QuartierLatin1968 20:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is new evidence that the Celtic poeples, my people as an Irish/Scottish/Welsh/-American, came from the Caspian Sea area. There is evidence, Genetic evidence i might add, that shows celtic migration from the Caspian sea to cover the entire continent of Eruope, parts of Northern Africa, into India, and even mumies discovered in the urumchi area of China that are geneticlly linked to the hallsdatd Culture, and even to the last bastion of the celts, the oppressed nations of Scotland and Wales. Patton 117, A descendent of Niall of The Nine Hostage.

Only an American would say something as pathetic as 'oppressed nations of Scotland and Wales'.Enzedbrit 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Irish/Scottish/Welsh but no English? I DON'T THINK SO BUDDY! The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.195.86.36 (talk • contribs) .
So, the Celts were an ethnic people originating from the east that gave rise to a huge culture that spread-out among all peoples in all areas of continental Europe while the ethnic people may or may not have inter-bred with other ethnicities? zeryphex 16:58, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I recently finished rereading Salt: A World History and it states briefly that there have been recent archeological finds in the uigar autonomous region which are stratalingly similar in stature and artifact possession as the graves of the classic indo european celts. Does this suggest that the celts had either volintarily migrated from or were forced to leave asia? I throw this out into the discussion in hopes that someone knows more about this than I do. -Gaius

Well the "the Caspian Sea area" theory is strange, since the Celts and the Basques share the same ancestry, and there are finds, that ancestors of the Basques migrated from northern Africa. As of the term indigenous, well, we are all indigenous to one place on SOL 3 - Africa...

Celtic Art

About celtic art, do you plan to add information about the "Triskel" and related geometrical celtic art's ? Or is it off-topic ?

It's not really off-topic but it probably warrants an article of its own (which may well already exist at Celtic art). -- Derek Ross 00:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" adapted from Cu Chulainn?

When I read this intriguing article, I came across the text:

Their [Celtic] mythology has been absorbed into the folklore of half a dozen other countries. For instance, the famous Medieval English Arthurian tale of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is clearly an adaptation of a much older Irish legend about the exploits of the hero Cu Chulainn.

Having a passing familiarity with Sir Gawain's story, I followed both links to compare. However, I saw nothing in either article that suggested this adaptation. I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but the pursuit of illumination is why I read the other articles. ☺ It would be good for someone familiar with both tales and/or the adaptation to round out either or both of these articles so the above quote is confirmed by the cited articles. Just a thought. -- Jeff Q 08:03, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

This is in fact quite true, though it's not as specific as it needs to be. SGGK has several key motifs, one of which is generally known as "The Champion's Bargain." Ths is the "you take this axe and strike me with it, and I get to return the blow" bit. The general consensus, best documented by Larry Benson in his 1965 book Art and Tradition in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is that the English poet / creator of SGGK was likely exposed to the "Champion's Bargain" via an Anglo-Norman romance, but that the theme is itself Celtic in origin, and that the earliest extant version is preserved in the Middle Irish tale Flec Bricrend /The Feast of Bricriu Cé Chulainn is the hero of the tale, and "win" the Champion's Bargain contest. I'll post a couple of paragraphs summarizing the tale and the scholarship, if someone can tell me where it goes--I've gone back and forth between various entries on SGGK and Celt and Celtic Mythology looking for the reference cited above, and perhaps from lack of caffeine, am unable to spot the spot, so to speak.

DigitalMedievalist 02:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lisa

Hallstatt as border against the east

This was a popular concept in the 1920s/1930s - for obvious reasons - but actual evidence of a border is scant. A number of "eastern traits" are found in the early Hallstatt (HaC1) 'Thraco-cimmerian horizon": horse bits, daggers, sceptres, bigger horses. --Yak 11:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The map misses a region

The map misses the Celtic influence in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea, in Eastern Romania) and Southern Bessarabia (now part of Ukraine). Several towns with Celtic names, such as Durostorum, Noviodunum and Arrubium were located in this region. Bogdan | Talk 11:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It also misses Turkish Galatia which was settled by the Celts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

It ALSO MISSES large area of Balkans, novadays divided between Srbia & Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Have you ever been to Serbia? I ask this becasue there are evidence of Celtic influence, which are found in the names of rivers, mountains (Tara in particular)...

What about the Basques?

I note that the map includes in the Celtic area the region currently occupied by the Basques (often considered an ancient "indigenous" European people. Were the Basques somewhere else at this time, or did they share the area with the Celts? rossb 21:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is just a mistake in the map. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The non-orange strip around the edge of the Bay of Biscay is mostly in the modern Basque country (both French and Spanish), and apppears to be intended to reflect the Basque presence.

Collis (2003) says that "the Vascones are probably the ancestors of the modern Basques". He positions them around the Pyrenees. Other contemporary residents of what is now the Basque country would probably have included people speaking Celtiberian, Iberian, Ligurian and Gallic-celtic languages.

If one wanted to be contentious, one might argue that the Vascones were no less Celtic than the contemporary residents of Ireland. Neither, apparently, were particularly closely related to the Celts of the continent. While the Irish spoke a language now thought of as being Celtic, the Vascones were much more heavily exposed to mainstream Celtic culture. -- User:Eithear April 20, 2005

yes, the non-orange strip is supposed to account for the Basques. Maybe I put a bit too much orange there, sorry; it is 'incorrect' to paint the Pyrenees and the Alps solid orange anyway, since settlement was probably rather sparse; the map is only supposed to give a rough idea; I'd be happy to update it if somebody were to show me a more accurate one to model it on. dab () 20:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


The non orange strip is not quite exact. The Burdigala and Tolosa area had a definite Gaulish presence well before Roman times, although Gauls may not have been the sole dwellers there, and the area now covered by the Béarn and Pays Basque regions were definitely Vascon held. And the Vascones, if they were originally speakers of Euskara, were definitely non Celtic; They are considered "indigenous" because their language is an orphan with no other one that can be creditably related to it (and over time they have been regarded as related to just any language family possible, including orphan Indo European, Ural-Altaic/Turanian, Caucasian... and there are more I forget); nor is there any reliable trace of movement of Basque speaking populations. and please don't mistake contact with mainstream Celtic culture and trade with being a Celt. Gaelic grammar and vocabulary are definitely Celtic (not to speak of their cultural closeness with their Brythonic relatives in spite of comparative isolation), though their belonging to the Q group makes them odd ducks in the Celtic language group... but you can get similar parallellism between Greek and Latin.--Svartalf 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of British/Irish Celts

Derek - I'm not asking for your item to be removed, I would like to see a source quoted. I would also like to see my line clarification left in. It isn't invalid to use the term Celt today, but it seems reasonable to point out that this is a modern term when used to cover the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland. -- User:India

It's not actually my item but I take your point for a source attribution and I'll see what I can do. I have no objection to your line clarification which is, as you say, a reasonable one, and if I removed it, that was an accident. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

North of Scotland missed on map

Pictish art has been found in the north of Scotland (including the Hebrides) and the Shetland and Orkney Islands, indicating that they were part of that {probably Brythonic) culture, which is later than the period given for the map, but at that earlier time stone roundhouses (and later Brochs) "formed a regional variant, albeit a spectacular one, of the Iron Age roundhouse tradition that stretched right across Britain, from Wessex to Shetland" to quote Scotland's Hidden History - Ian Armit, Tempus (in association with Historic Scotland) 1998, ISBN 0-7486-6067-4 Perhaps the map should be extended? ....dave souza 09:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

perhaps, yes. I left it blank because it is unknown whether the Picts were Celts, but your "roundhouse" argument is fair enough, so I am fine with updating the map. dab () 20:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Roundhouses were being built in Britain long before the iron age and are one of the archaeological arguments against a monolithic Celtic culture. In fact, I think Continental Celts preferred rectangular homes so house design is not a good argument on its own. adamsan 21:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with "Celtic" culture not being monolithic, but if the roundhouse culture was across Britain, all of it should be included or none. To me it make more sense to think of the Celts as being loosely linked with distinctive local variations. The areas left white later became Norse territory, but up to the time of the Picts the archaeology indicates a shared culture with more southerly areas. Similarly, the Pictish language is unknown, but their territory included much more of Scotland, down near to the Forth and Clyde. Many scholars seem to think they had a Brythonic Celtic language, perhaps differing from the Brythonic spoken in Scotland south of the Pictish territory...it's an interestingly untidy period...dave souza 00:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is anything but scientific... but common French imagery about Gaul has their house round rather than rectangular. We associate the rectangular shape more commonly with the Germanic or Norse style of building. (then again, Celts ang Vikings may have had more in common than many usually guess)--Svartalf 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation again

I removed this sentence:

Becuase it is not an Enlish invented word, a pronunciation with /s/ should not be accepted.

Aside from its spelling errors, this sentence is prescriptivist. Wikipedia doesn't tell people what to do. Furthermore, the conclusion does not follow the premise. We use words and names all the time that are from foreign languages but are pronounced like English words. For example, we pronounce "wiener" as "weener", not "veener". We say "Seezer" instead of "Kay-sahr" for Caesar. In fact, very few words are "English-invented", and a great many words we used are neither spelled nor pronounced the way they originally were. What makes "Celt" so different? Personally, I think both pronunciations are valid. It's a POV issue, so Wikipedia has no business stating one way or the other. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

From a language point of view, both pronunciations *are* valid... in English. c as an initial consonant with /s/ sound has precedent in the English language. The /k/ sound at the beginning of 'Celt' comes from the original Greek, and this pronunciation was notably revived along with the romantic revival of 'Celticity' beginning in the 18th century in western Europe, then continuing on to the present.
So, the Boston folk are saying it correctly, but in a particular context. The descriptivist way of looking at this problem is that both are valid, but the two pronunciations are begining to be 'appropriate' according to context: /k/ when referring to 'Celtic' peoples/languages/nations, /s/ when referring to the sports teams on both sides of the Atlantic, and so on. Being on the side of the prescriptivists myself, this makes my teeth grind a bit, but such is life. :) P.MacUidhir 14:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


I too am a prescriptivist, and support the soft C sound, again because of _our_ origin of the word. The ultimate origin notwithstanding, we got our word from the French language. Historically, the /k/ pronunciation was only countenanced when actually spelling the word with a /k/.
I understand that language evolves over time, but the short time this has been common does not lend sufficient weight to it as a 'proper' pronunciation. I'm considering mentally modifying it to a permanent /k/ spelling so I can stop people from 'correcting' me in day to day speech. (See: The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations, Charles Herrington Elster).
Subbie/Dennis Hughes

"Apparently no urbanisation"

I leapt in straight away when I read this. Has the author never heard of Oppida. The one closest to me being Manching in southern Bavaria and was apparently as big as 380ha and probably well fortified. This was definitely more than a hill fort. I think it had even a proper street grid. )--User:Cahal 13:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)