Talk:Celts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romanization of Celts

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling

Resolved

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

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

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

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

"Sense of self"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I agree with that. Sorry about the confusion, and the late retraction, Gabhala. I had misinterpreted you. FilipeS 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. There are a number of issues here - the first is, as you say, to define what is meant by a "Celtic sense of self". If we interprete this quite literally as meaning "did they call themselves (specifically) Celts?", then the answer is probably no. Then, again, the Germans don't call themselves German, nor the French French. So we look a little deeper, and we find the Gael/Gal/Gaul root popping up all over the postulated Celtic territories - certainly suggestive of either a perceived shared heritage or a very large, very nomadic group. The latter is least likely, since repeated movements of such a group would mean that their influence on a given area would be absorbed over time, after their departure.

The second issue is the question of whether that sense of self, assuming it existed, was ever lost to the point that it was necessary to "return". History is full of countries and nations that were ruled by foreign powers, but the native peoples, generally, remained as such maintaining their national/cultural identity even under foreign rule. In almost all cases where a country was annexed or colonised by another, the native culture has taken something from the "occupiers'" culture, and vice versa. Looking at modern history, it is quite evident that at some point soon after gaining independence, almost all occupied countries go through a period where they try to purge the effects of the occupation - this has been more pronounced in situations where the natives have maintained a history of rebellion.

So, in short, while I personally believe there is ample evidence to suggest a "return to a Celtic sense of self", in the broadest sense, the fact is that this apparently happened at the beginning of Europe's Dark Ages, and this means that there is a lack of citable sources, and therefore is not verifiable as per Wikipedia's criteria (WP:RS), and so I concur that it is inappropriate, for now, to include such statements in this article. Gabhala 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

British or Brython?

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

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

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

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

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

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

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

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

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

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

Masters Thesis

I would like to enroll into the Masters Thesis Research Degree

This is a link to my Research:

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

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

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

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

Athenaeus on Celtic pederasty

Why is this pedophiliac agenda being brought in here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celtic pederasty

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

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

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

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

While the ancient Greeks were hostile to the Celts, they were not hostile to pederasty. And I'm sorry to say that a lot of what we know about the peoples of Antiquity comes from biased, even hostile commentators. There just aren't any local sources to rely upon. FilipeS 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Celctic Sexual Practices > Females

Quote Nennius a Monk who wrote about the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Saxons:

39. In the meantime, Vortigern (the Celtic High Lord of the Britons,) as if desirous of adding to the evils he had already occasioned, married his own daughter, by whom he had a son. When this was made known to St. Germanus, he came, with all the British clergy, to reprove him: and whilst a numerous assembly of the ecclesiastics and laity were in consultation, the weak king ordered his daughter to appear before them, and in the presence of all to present her son to St. Germanus, and declare that he was the father of the child. The immodest1 woman obeyed; and St. Germanus, taking the child, said, "I will be a father to you, my son; nor will I dismiss you till a razor, scissors, and comb, are given to me, and it is allowed you to give them to your carnal father." The child obeyed St. Germanus, and going to his father Vortigern, said to him, "Thou art my father; shave and cut the hair of my head." The king blushed, and was silent; and, without replying to the child, arose in great anger, and fled from the presence of St. Germanus, execrated and condemned by the whole synod.

Was it that thge Celts were into this type of sexual practice in a big way? In the US there has been some debate that this was a problem that other peoples such as the Saxons and indeed the Romans did not like. Could this have been passed donw genetically? Please discuss.