Talk:Celts

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Celts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Ethnic groups Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is flagged as needing an independent reassessment or validation of its current rating. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

/Archive1

Note on BC/BCE: "BC" has been the usage in this article since October 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miner 20.55 24 Jan 07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/rant  :)

Subbie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did they smoke marijuana too?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added this section on 29 November 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you are absolutely correct...

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

Richard

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

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

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

Good point well made Jameswilson. Best regards --Richard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i mean from which country did they arrive from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

-->How to assess articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WPCobbett - 26 Jan 07 12.55

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 very convincing evidence of a revival of some "Celtic sense of self", I'm afraid. FilipeS 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]