Jump to content

Talk:Celts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FilipeS (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 25 July 2007 (→Celtic pederasty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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


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

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

Romanization of Celts

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

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

Spelling

Resolved


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

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

"Sense of self"

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

Is there any source for this rather amusing statement, or is it just New Wave wishful thinking? FilipeS 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[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 like very convincing evidence of a revival of some "Celtic sense of self", I'm afraid. FilipeS 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sorry but that’s not quite how debate works, If someone makes a claim and you ask for evidence and remain unsatisfied when it is provided (in quite abundance I might add) it is not within your rights to continue demanding new evidence until you finally come to the correct conclusion. If you would like to prove that The Breitch don’t speak Breitch, that the Gaelic language did not influence Gaelego (Gaelic Gaelego disappeared around 1500) and that the Austurians didn’t speak a language native to Austuria during and after the fall of Rome then it now falls on you to provide evidence to your claims. Your post wasn’t worth replying too, clearly your short on facts, You need to resort to insult. ext. I believe were done here until you find it in your heart to find evidence for your claims which probably amounts to little more then unionist dogma. Prove me wrong if you can.... In a final note this post is not in any way a correction of my second or third posts, which still stand uncontested. Bloody Sacha, March 25 2007.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.156.140 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not for debate, it's for improving the article. If the evidence provided "in quite abundance" is the link above, please read WP:A and WP:RS and note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You might also note that Berengar_of_Rennes appears to have been Breton, hence a descendant of the Brythonic emigration from Britain to the continent c. the late Roman era. See Snyder, Christopher A. (2003). The Britons. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22260-X. He also points out the lack of evidence of anything more than a tribal identity in pre-Roman times. So, consider your assertions contested. .. dave souza, talk 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-The Gallic Empire would be the best example of a persisting Celtic culture that had thrown out roman officials.
-Vercingetorix’s ability to rally well over 100,000 Celts is also a great show of cultural unity that points to the natives having a far more elaborate social and cultural structure then that of simple tribes
-The Fact that Gaul was conquered with extensive use of Gaulic soldiers would speak against a snuffing out of the Celtic culture.
-the fact that the Romans had to design Gauls provinces in accordance to the local tribes that inhabit them, allowing many of them special status such as self government and even tax exemption and the equally undisputable fact that those provinces are relatively reflective of the modern states of France. (See galatia in turkey for similar celto-roman relations)
-The fact that Celtic Christianity took root and flourished in Gaul and the comparable failure of Latin installments in territory that was allegedly “Romanized” with inhabitants that only spoke “Vulgar Latin”
-The fact that Gauls are recognized as the ancestors of Franks as apposed to their supposed Germanic heritage (see Viollet-le-Duc or any French history text book, right on the inside of the cover)
Ill agree that my initial statement didn’t make use of direct references which may have caused confusion but there is more then enough evidence to state clearly that Celtic culture did not vanish into the night in Europe only to be rekindled on the corners of the continent by invaders. In the end attempts to associate new hypothesis regarding cultural influences that aren’t poisoned by 19th and 20th century psuedo sciences regarding “Germanic” or “Anglo Saxon” supremacy as just being “New Wave” is petty.
For the record arguments and debates are social phenomena that are achieved while working towards other goals such as reaching a conclusion that is mutually acceptable to all parties or improving the article. Unfortunately I don’t have a source for this statement so I assume it is immediately invalidated.
That aside I thank you for the time you’ve dedicated to this. Bloody Sacha, March 25 2007.

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

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

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

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

First, that's not quite the same as living before the conquest of Gaul (in 58-57 BC). He was executed by Caesar in 51 BC, almost eight years after the conquest of Gaul began. Second, unless I have missed something, I don't see anybody claiming that Vercingetorix lived "during and after the fall of the Roman Empire" - the only mention here of Vercingetorix is in relation to the size of the army he could raise from all the various tribes of Gaul. I believe the point was to illustrate that the Gauls, at least, were capable of putting aside minor feuds in the interest of the common good.(In fact, according to Barry Cunliffe in "The Celtic World" (ISBN 0-90-471640-4) pp 150-153, his reserve force at Alesia numbered almost 250,000 warriors). Gabhala 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To get back on topic, does Cunliffe have anything to say about the ideas in "During and after the fall of the Roman Empire many parts of France threw out their Roman administrators and reverted to a Celtic sense of self"? .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still reading - the structure of that particular book is not chronological (or even geographical). If I find a reference to support the "Sense of Self" idea, I'll be sure to share. I think it is obvious, however that there never was a "Celtic Nation" - even the concept would have been alien to the Celtic social structure, and as such to try and "force" the concept as it stems from the Greek and Roman city-states onto a very different culture may be a fool's errand. According to the Lebor Gabála Érenn, though, common descent from a single ancestor seemed to be significant. Gabhala 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the section of the book entitled "The Roman Footprint" (pp. 156-158), Cunliffe discusses briefly how deep the Roman influence went in Britain and Gaul. Obviously, I'm not going to quote the entire section here, but the suggestion is that while the tribal leaders generally embraced Romanisation, and that the Romans carefully preserved the existing Celtic social and economic structures and absorbed them into the administrative machine. He suggests that Latin was adopted for administrative purposes, and that Romanisation only occured to any significant extent in the urban and administrative centres. The Celtic language remained so widely spoken that in the third century it was officially recognised as a legally acceptable language for wills. Celtic words were borrowed into Latin (e.g. bracae = trousers). So, in this light, it would seem that rather than reverting to a sense of self, the Roman administrative layer became obsolete in Celtic society, and the Celtic identity was no longer covered with a Roman veneer. Gabhala 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British or Brython?

Argument rages in the academic world as to whether the population of Celts in England were largely displaced or merely absorbed by invading Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) in the 4th - 6th centuries. Many historians now argue that the Germanic migration was smaller than previously believed or may have consisted merely of a social elite, with the genocide more cultural rather than physical due to such relatively few numbers of Anglo-Saxons mixing with the larger native population. A recent DNA study on Y-chromosome inheritance has suggested that the population of England maintains a predominantly ancient British element. The general indigenous population of Yorkshire, East Anglia and the Orkney and Shetland Islands are those populations with the very least traces of ancient British paternal continuation.[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

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]

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

Athenaeus on Celtic pederasty

Why is this pedophiliac agenda being brought in here?

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

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

The only thing that is disingenuous is your evident desire to suppress this information, presumably because it offends you in some way. It's not a "slander", since ancient Mediterranean cultures were known to practice pederasty. It's just a note to a source concerning sexual mores, about which we have little information, but if you have more add it. Paul B 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is plenty of historical evidence that it could be literally a slander. Regardless of the fact thast pederasty was practiced it was often criticised, Julius Caesar was mocked by political enemies for example early in his career for his alleged "age differentiated" homosexual relationship with Nicomedes IV of Bithynia. Tiberius was widely reviled for his extreme practices of pederasty at his retreat on Capri, rumors of these activities seriously undermined his popularity. I also don't have to point out that many greek writers were critical of the practice. So while an accepted practice, certainly, in Greek and particularly Roman culture, it was clearly still looked upon as a moral lapse by some, and there is documented proof of accusations of this activity being used to slander individuals and groups for political purposes. Drifter bob 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if the Romans told stories that the Celts flew to war on the backs of winged ponies, this would be worth adding, mainly because outsiders' views of the Celts are interesting in themselves. When Caesar was assassinated, stories were put about that the tombs of Rome opened and the dead walked the streets. I strongly believe this to be false, but that's no reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. garik 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To continue your analogy, I would not object to this quote of walking dead from a primary source, but if it was followed by a claim that zombies were commonplace in many parts of the world at this time, I would find that a bit odd. Drifter bob 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing wrong with putting in the quote, what I have a problem with is the extensive interpretation of it, and the claim about so called "age structured homosexuality" being a common practice throughout Celtic cultures on the basis of this one piece of evidence. Drifter bob 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But is such a claim being made? The article notes that "age-structured homosexuality" was a common practice in pre-Christian European cultures. This is not the same as saying common throughout Celtic cultures — they could easily be an exception (although they also may not be). I agree that this claim does need a separate source. Is it based solely on evidence of Greek and Roman practice? In fact, the whole section needs to be far better sourced: including your point about attitudes towards women. Accurate or not, we can't include original research here. garik 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Celtic pederasty

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

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

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

Drifter bob 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celctic Sexual Practices > Females

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

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

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

Role of women in celtic culture and the implication on Pederasty

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

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

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

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

The point is not whether he was correct or not — it would be reasonable to mention Alfred the Great burning the cakes in Wikipedia, even though that's no more than a legend. This is an interesting quotation, which reflects contemporary claims by outsiders. It should be kept in the article, albeit with a caveat that this is an outsider's claim. On the other hand, I think more could almost certainly be said on Celtic family structure. If you have good sources for other information, please add it. garik 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not the quote that is the problem, it is the way it is interpreted. Herodotus claimed that ants the size of dogs could be found digging gold in India. Following this quote with a claim that this was how the Greeks or Persians mined their gold would be a bit of a stretch. Drifter bob 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this would be a stretch, but I'm not convinced that the article did go on to state that Celts were therefore into pederasty. All it did was give the quote and then try to put it in context: 1) It's just an outsider's view 2) If it is true, the Celts weren't all that unusual in this regard 3)there is some very faint evidence of homosexual-like relationships in Celtic literature. They all need better sources, that's for sure, and I have nothing against your most recent edit — the move to a new section seems quite right. But having read that paragraph before your edit, all I took away from it was that some Roman guy had claimed that pederastic behaviour was common among the Celts, and that whether or not this was true, such behaviour was not uncommon in Pre-Christian Europe generally. That's all.
Oh, and let's keep this discussion here at the bottom of the page from now on. This will make the discussion rather more straightforward, I feel. garik 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure there was all that much skewing, but there's certainly more than a hint of original research. We really need a few citations for claims for and against Athanaeus's point. Anyway, I've reorganised the paragraph and reworded some bits. Drifter Bob (or anyone else), if you have sources to hand on the freedom of Celtic women — and, most importantly, the issue of pederasty being correlated with poor treatment of women — that would be great. garik 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it was intentionally skewed, just that through the process of editing "age-structured homosexuality" seemed to have been given undue weight, and zero information about family compounds it. - WeniWidiWiki 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly what I feel. Give me a little time and i will document the points I added to the article. I agree they need to be sourced. Drifter bob 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone has any sources for close warrior relationships being interpreted as homosexual, that would also be good. And yes, WeniWidiWiki, I'd forgotten about the "Little is known about family structure" sentence. If this is all we say about family structure, then there clearly is a balance problem, you're quite right. garik 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Celtic sexual practices

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

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

I think it's well worth including the Strabo and Caesar quotes: we can start the section with what other people said (and here, a quotation by Cuncliffe, pointing out the danger of all this, would be excellent) and go on to what we can gleam from the Celts' own literature and law. For the first, it would be great, Kathryn, if you could dig out that lesbian story. With regard to law, we should mention Hywel Dda's law: the treatment of women was similarly less unenlightened in our eyes than, say, Saxon law. garik 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be careful of talking about 'the Celts' as some homogeneous mass and, apart from when we cite Classical authors (who distinguish between Celts and Britons, but not within these two masses), we should be careful that we don't assume what's true of the Irish to be true of the Galatians. garik 10:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current status of this section

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent. If you have sourced items to add, please put them in. I think Abtract was probably right to remove the original research and uncited claims, but I don't think anybody should be happy with the section as it stands — we need lots more stuff, just not original research. I think if anyone has something good to add — with sources — they should just go ahead and add it. garik 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that anything I wrote could be construed as 'original research'.
Before I changed it the section was blatantly part of an agenda; at the very least it had almost nothing to do with "celtic family life."
However, some interpretation or summary of the facts is needed and that does not mean it's 'original research', indeed this is always part of any Wikipedia entry, otherwise the entire page would be nothing but quotes with no context or explanation, and I don't think that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. A very contraversial assertion was made, which was never questioned or removed, and I added a balancing interpretation with facts. I asked for a day or two to get the sources in there, and I had already entered two out of three requested source references when everything I had written was summarily removed (with no explanation in this Talk section). For example it is a well known and oft discussed fact that no Celtic (Irish, Breton, Welsh, Scottish etc.) sources ever mention Pederasty or even homosexuality. Why should that be removed? Funny how the original highly subjective analysis insinuating that Pederasty was commonplace was allowed to stand as unchallenged until this point. Apparently this is a very important issue to some people, this sub-seciton will remain continuously under an immense amount of pressure and no consensus will be possible on anything even remotely subject to interpretation. So the only thing which can stand are quotes from primary sources which are by nature unquestionable if only in the sense they do in fact exist (and one would assume, hard archeological data for the same reason). I will accomodate this since it is necessary to prevent a gross distortion for a specific political / social agenda. Drifter bob 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, when I say 'original research and uncited claims' I'm not making much of a distinction: it can be distressingly easy to find a source that says precisely what you thought was original. You may well not have included any original research; either way, claims need backup. Now, I know a lot of articles get away with a lot of uncited stuff, which isn't at all good. But it is especially important when an issue is controversial, like this one. And I also agree that original research was allowed to stand for a long time before you made edits. That's not good either, and it should have been removed sooner. But I'm afraid that 'well known and oft discussed' is not a good enough criterion for inclusion. I had a discussion with someone else on Wikipedia about whether Sean Connery being Scottish would require a citation. I was being naive in thinking it wouldn't. It certainly would. I agree that interpretation is a good thing too — we could probably have kept the point "This represents an outsider's view". Maybe Abtract was a little over-zealous in removing that line, but I'm sure you can see his point in general. Some interpretation can overstep the mark. With regard to the point about pederasty being commonplace: I honestly think this was only ever intended to refer to Roman and Greek Europe — and no doubt whoever put it in considered Classical pederasty in Rome and Athens to be well known and oft discussed. But it certainly needed backing up with a citation too. And besides, "no original research" does not mean you can only include direct quotes — it just means you need sources to back up what you do say. Just because stuff's been removed doesn't mean it can't be put back in when sources have been found. If we had good enough references, we could probably put back every line that Abtract removed. Ideally, of course, we'd do something even better. garik 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on DNA

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

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

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

move to Celts (again)

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

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

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

Tired of liars and manipulators

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

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

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

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

The facts are so VERY clear; from the extensive DNA testing that has been done, R1b levels are as high as 98 percent in a part of Ireland, around 95 percent in Northern Portugal and Galicia (northwest Spain) and the Basque country, 90 percent in parts of Wales and about 70 percent in Cornwall. The so called Atlantic haplotype is highest in Portugal and Ireland. The Atlantic Celts are clearly very closely related genetically (and to a reasonnable degree culturally), so it is obvious to anyone who can think clearly that there is no basis for further argument about the common genetic heritage between Iberia and the British Isles. Facts are facts people...

Anthropologique 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Map

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

Ethnic Confusion

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

I think many people tend to forget that Celticism was a cultural grouping, rather than a racial one. Is there a single genetic pattern that defines "Europeans", or "Americans". Are all Italian citizens closely related genetically? So it was with the Celts. Did every "Roman" come from Rome? Were all of Alexander's armies born in Macedonia? What made the citizens of the Roman Empire "Roman"? Their acceptance of Roman laws, customs, language and identity, that's what. That's what made the Iceni, the Parissi, Dumnonii, Boii, etc. Celtic - they each had a vein of common "Celtic" culture to a greater or lesser extent. The modern British are quite different from the French - or even from the Germans, with whom they share a heritage - but all can be considered European, and not just by virtue of geography. Gabhala 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celts in Britain

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

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

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

Haplogroup Controversy

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

Differences in appearance can, in great part, be explained by geography / climate differences. Some of the phenotypical differences between Iberians and people of the British Isles may also have to do with a larger Viking content in the latter's gene pool. The basic genetics, however, are practically identical between Northern Iberians and British. The British Isles populations are part and parcel of the very first European gene pool: the Iberians.

Anthropologique 18:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported statements

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

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

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

Archaeological evidence

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


Another laughing stock of wikipdia thanks to British Editors

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

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

my stuff (May 23)

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

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


Removal of Celtic Astronomy Section

Sorry, I got logged off when I did this.

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

"Celtic astronomy Over 4,000 years ago, large monuments were erected worldwide, most notably the Great Pyramid of Giza, Rujm el-Hiri and Stonehenge. The latter was built by one or more Celtic societies at least 5,500 years ago. Its dual role, as a calendar and as a site of religious ceremonies, reflects how the Celts comingled astronomy and religion. Their knowledge of astronomy was relatively advanced since they had adopted a Copernican view of the Solar System 3,000 years before Christ. Although (at first) the Celts were not centered on farming, thus requiring little astronomical observation, they projected their firm belief in the after-life into space. The Moon was considered holy because souls wondered there; the Milky Way was a town filled with free souls; Cassiopeia was the domain of fairies. [2]"

Dragonhelmuk 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be re-adding such a section with new material that is well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you state why? Are you going to be discussing specifically Celtic astronomy? Perhaps you could explain what that is. Paul B 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There os material from Dillon and Chadwick that I am reading. related to the Coligny Calendar, as well as other material acribed to Anthedius and others. Will be adding such section in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's very doubtful if there's anything meaningfully "Celtic" about the CC. Paul B 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Coligny Calendar is one of the few artefacts with Gaulish words written on it. That surely gives it a better claim to "Celticity" than almost any other item. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is Celtic in that sense. I was referring to the suggestion that it is evidence of a distinctively "Celtic" form of astronomy. Paul B 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed this section to "The Celtic Calendar", because it seemed much more appropriate to the content, as most of it was about the Coligny Calendar. Hope no-one minds too much! If anyone was planning to add more astrology stuff then the section might need its name changed back again, but don't just revert as I added other stuff too! ;> Dragonhelmuk 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Berresford Ellis has some very good material on Celtic astrology based on what the Romans and Greek described of it. The chapter "Celtic Cosmology" in his paperback, A Brief History of the Celts, covers the topics of astronomy, astrology and the calendar mentioned in this section. In fact a summary of the chapter would form a good basis for the section -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic women

I am researching material to expand the section on Celtic women, in particular what is recorded about Teuta, Camma, Cartimandua, and if course, Boudicca. Any help wouyld be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to help with Boudicca and Cartimandua. You should go to www.history.com and check out what they have to say. --Belorix 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again I would suggest that you get a copy of Peter Berresford Ellis's book, A Brief History of the Celts. This has a short but excellent chapter on "Celtic Women", which as well as describing notable female Celts, gives some background on the behaviour of, and treatment of, Celtic women in general, as seen through the eyes of Roman and Greek commentators of the time, and of those who codified the Brehon law. Very interesting stuff. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's articles on Boudica and Cartimandua contain links to the ancient sources, which I would suggest you read before Berresford Ellis. He's far from the worst, but he's a romantic and he idealises the Celts somewhat. --Nicknack009 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have Beresford Ellis's book, and other sources as well. I do not see much of an issue in providing the different viewpoints available on the subject. The ancient texts, of course, are somewhat biased as these were written by Roman and Greek historians that had a very specific view of the Celts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that Ellis is extremely enthusiastic about his subject, he's a Celtophile and a half no less, but he generally provides reasonable sources to back up his more "romantic" statements. However as you suggest, it's always worthwhile to read the ancient sources if possible and at least he lets you know what they are so that you can check them out yourself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, we can present all significant viewpoints, and that includes Beresford Ellis, other contemporary historians, as well as the ancient ones. Put together, these viewpoints are part of what makes this subject so fascinating, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Jossi. It is a fascinating subject. It never fails to amaze me when I discover that yet another aspect of the modern "global" culture has its roots in Celtic culture whether it is something as important as the concept of the Holy Trinity or as insignificant as the word "car". -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally inaccurate statements

The comments suggesting that there are no genetic affinities between British Isles Celts and Continetal Europe Celts is ludicrous. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that the "Celtic haplogroup" originated in Iberia and migrated north. There have been several north / south and south / north Celtic migrations throughout history. Read the literature please...

Anthropologique 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what passages you're talking about. Could you quote anything directly? If you have any good sources on this, please let us know. garik 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section about affinities lacks competing viewpoints. I will be adding some of these in the next day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error

" However, modern genetic studies have shown that the original spread of modern man across Europe took place more than 20,000 years ago and re-expanded from refuges after the last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago. It now seems likely that the farmers from the Middle East did not generally displace the hunter-gatherers but that farming was slowly adopted by the latter. However, the association of the Indo-European language family with farming remains unproven."

The second half of the paragraph is generally thought to be incorrect. The most commoly accepted scenario is that the Indo-European language was spread by the introduction of animal husbandry by the "Proto-Indo_Europeans' out of the Pontic steppe rather than agriculture from the middle east. Ie Anatolian vs Kurghan hypothesis.

Response

It seems that there was a significant spread of people from the Middle East into Eastern Europe in the Neolithic but few came to Western Europe (though including my ancestor) and thus probably farming was spread in this region by acculturisation. The association with IE remains a conjecture as the dates dont seem to match well. Adresia 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at List of Celtic tribes

To everyone interested, there is a dispute going on at List of Celtic tribes, regarding the inclusion in the list of the Celtic tribes in Iberia. You can check the relevant discussions at Talk:List of Celtic tribes#Iberia. Thank you. The Ogre 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that the ‘See also’ section here is missing links to the two relevant Wikipedia articles entitled ‘Irish (Gaeilge)’ and ‘Anglo-Celtic’ – how can these links be included (in the 'Related' and 'Language' sections respectively)? Could someone who is fully wikipedia proficient please put these in, or advise me how to do it myself? Kind regards, Pconlon 11:59, 27 June 2007 (GMT)

colours on image caption

Am I colour-blind, or are the colours discussed in the caption of Image:Celts 800-400BC.PNG slightly off? Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "By analyzing 1772 Y chromosomes from 25 predominantly small urban locations, its found that different parts of the British Isles have sharply different paternal histories; the degree of population replacement and genetic continuity shows systematic variation across the sampled areas." A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles (pdf)
  2. ^ Blake, John F., (1877) "Astronomical Myths". MacMillan and Co., pp.29-48, reprinted (2003) Kessinger Publishing ISBN: 0766165965.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celts&oldid=147004855"