Talk:Celts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Barbarism

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

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

Well, except for the human sacrifice bits. That we can leave behind. Despite that qualification, I agree. An unhelpful last paragraph. --MichaelTinkler

Well, yes, but even that is open to a bit of debate... sjc

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

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

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

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

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

Gaul was an occupied nation under the Romans and Caesar's account in the Gallic Wars tends to overstate the case to emphasise the effectiveness of his campaigns. What we actually have here is an early form of guerrilla warfare, usually harrying Roman armies on the move northwards against the Germanic nations, early international cooperation. Of course, most resistance against an army as brutal and efficient as the Roman military machine was a bit on a par with the Afghanis v. USA & Britain. The Gauls not only took a heavy hit militarily, but lost in the propaganda stakes.

Marauding occurred but to say that it was a way of life for the Gauls is to misrepresent them: they typically fought back in order to protect themselves from enslavement and Roman provocations: plunder, rapine and widespread depredation. There is plenty of evidence to substantiate this.

On the subject of enslavement in mines, I have seen little archaeological evidence to date. It did occur but it was peoples who had been conquered; since, as I have already argued, the Celts were generally peaceable, this would indicate that it would have been on a relatively small scale, unlike the Romans and Greeks who ran empires on the back of it. Slavery goes against the generally sophisticated nature of Celtic societiessjc

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

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

The Gallic Celts did smash the Etruscan empire and then Rome itself around 390-387 B.C. but this was just a case of getting their retribution in early :-). Seriously, the early stages of Celtic assertion were necessarily violent, they were just establishing themselves in the face of ruthless opposition; my reading of it is that they were merely protecting their corner. Other Celtic tribes pushed further east and were met by Alexander the Great on the Danube in 335-334 B.C. in a peaceful conference, and achieved an intelligent accommodation.

It was not until after Alexander's death and some serious provocation that the Celts invaded Greece and sacked the Oracle at Delphi, going on to establish the state of Galatia. About 20,000 Celts first entered what became Galatia in 278 B.C., under the pretense and invitation of one area king at war with another. The early presence of the Celtic "horde" in this region has rightly been characterized as marauding and given to plunder. Eventually they settled down and built fortified villages, and aligned themselves with local kings.

The point I am making is that once established, the generality of Celtic behaviour was to act pragmatically and intelligently. sjc

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Tene refeences

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

If you insist... sjc

Ethnicity

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Galatia, etc.

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

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

Celt -- the tool

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

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

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

---

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

---

Simon James of Durham University has written that;

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Hughes

Wishful thinking

I removed

which was harmonious with nature

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

'Celt'

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

Celts in Britain

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

Anne Wareham

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

Cunliffe's Iron Age Britain (Batsford, 2004) begins by laying out the arguments against the outdated concept of the Celtic invasion of the British Isles. Page 16:

If the current, widely held, view is correct that Britain escaped the impact of folk movement from the Continent in the first millennium BC...it remains to explain the nature of the similarities seen between the material assemblages of the British Isles and those of Continental Europe

I feel you do Simon James a disservice by calling his view a minority amongst archaeologists. Cunliffe goes on to state that linguistic research now considers 'Celtic' languages to predate any Celtic folk movement out of central Europe and trade links can easily explain the connexions shown in the archaeological record. This view is firmly held by the processualist archaeologists in Britain who consider invasion theory to be a throwback to discredited culture historical approaches. adamsan 22:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I've also heard that the Celts (in my words)"didn't know how to swim" - that is to say, (in other people's words) they didnt built capable boats and did not went into to the sea. Thought they made influence on the British isles. Now I undestand why there is so much fuss on this, people used the Celtic thing for nationalistic issues and why these people in particular seems to be so popular between English speakers. They were important because of the migrations they made in continental Europe. -Pedro 17:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Indigenous

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

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

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

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

Only an American would say something as pathetic as 'oppressed nations of Scotland and Wales'.Enzedbrit 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish/Scottish/Welsh but no English? I DON'T THINK SO BUDDY! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.195.86.36 (talk • contribs) .

So, the Celts were an ethnic people originating from the east that gave rise to a huge culture that spread-out among all peoples in all areas of continental Europe while the ethnic people may or may not have inter-bred with other ethnicities? zeryphex 16:58, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Celtic Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallstatt as border against the east

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

Pronunciation of the word 'Celt', 'Celtic', et al...

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The map misses a region

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

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

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

What about the Basques?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of British/Irish Celts

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

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

Derek Ross objection to intro clarification

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)

Volcae

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)

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)

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)

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)

Galatia

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)

Hair

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

North of Scotland missed on map

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

perhaps, yes. I left it blank because it is unknown whether the Picts were Celts, but your "roundhouse" argument is fair enough, so I am fine with updating the map. dab (ᛏ) 20:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Roundhouses were being built in Britain long before the iron age and are one of the archaeological arguments against a monolithic Celtic culture. In fact, I think Continental Celts preferred rectangular homes so house design is not a good argument on its own. adamsan 21:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Celtic" culture not being monolithic, but if the roundhouse culture was across Britain, all of it should be included or none. To me it make more sense to think of the Celts as being loosely linked with distinctive local variations. The areas left white later became Norse territory, but up to the time of the Picts the archaeology indicates a shared culture with more southerly areas. Similarly, the Pictish language is unknown, but their territory included much more of Scotland, down near to the Forth and Clyde. Many scholars seem to think they had a Brythonic Celtic language, perhaps differing from the Brythonic spoken in Scotland south of the Pictish territory...it's an interestingly untidy period...dave souza 00:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Pronunciation again

I removed this sentence:

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

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

From a language point of view, both pronunciations *are* valid... in English. c as an initial consonant with /s/ sound has precedent in the English language. The /k/ sound at the beginning of 'Celt' comes from the original Greek, and this pronunciation was notably revived along with the romantic revival of 'Celticity' beginning in the 18th century in western Europe, then continuing on to the present.

So, the Boston folk are saying it correctly, but in a particular context. The descriptivist way of looking at this problem is that both are valid, but the two pronunciations are begining to be 'appropriate' according to context: /k/ when referring to 'Celtic' peoples/languages/nations, /s/ when referring to the sports teams on both sides of the Atlantic, and so on. Being on the side of the prescriptivists myself, this makes my teeth grind a bit, but such is life. :) P.MacUidhir 14:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I too am a prescriptivist, and support the soft C sound, again because of _our_ origin of the word. The ultimate origin notwithstanding, we got our word from the French language. Historically, the /k/ pronunciation was only countenanced when actually spelling the word with a /k/.

I understand that language evolves over time, but the short time this has been common does not lend sufficient weight to it as a 'proper' pronunciation. I'm considering mentally modifying it to a permanent /k/ spelling so I can stop people from 'correcting' me in day to day speech. (See: The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations, Charles Herrington Elster).

Subbie/Dennis Hughes

"Apparently no urbanisation"

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

If this bugs people I'm sorry

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)

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)

Population Genetics

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.

Removal of section Population Genetics

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Population genetics - additional discussions

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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

-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)

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?)

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)

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.

Trivial Celtics

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)

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)

Gallic Britain?

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)

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)

p's and q's

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)

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

Galicia

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)

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)

cleanup

"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)

Sources

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

Bits on the Germanic invasion of Britain

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)

Comment moved here from article

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) .