Talk:Celts/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Forgive my delayed response, I got a bit frustrated with this page and forgot to keep checking in. Yes, the Middle Irish Lesbian Story is “Niall Frossach” from The Book of Leinster. It's the tale where a woman comes before a king for a judgement on who the father of her child is. The question is challenging, as she tells the king she has not had sex with a man. But he asks if she has had "playful mating" with a woman and she says, Yes, she has. So the king declares that her lover was with a man and that man is the father of the child. As it is a true judgement, the heavens open up and a cleric falls from the sky(!), along with other fascinating phenomena. Rather Pythonesque, actually. I'll see if I can find a link to it online somewhere; someone I know did a paper on it for a conference last year. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh yeah, I forgot, too. Let's definitely move it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. Still no objections. I'm moving it. Help me with cleaning up the redirects if you can! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Colin Renfreew is an Archaeologists not a historian. Also, I think the "Although archaeological evidence has often been proved unreliable in the past" comment is misleading, not to mention a bit harsh. --Tle585 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"For the record; British nationalism emphasizes the Anglo Saxon", are you sure? i mean, really really sure? Gazh 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. "

Dragonhelmuk 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be re-adding such a section with new material that is well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, it's very doubtful if there's anything meaningfully "Celtic" about the CC. Paul B 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You might be interested in Evans' 2004 Quantified Identities BAR publication which discusses the changing nature of female roles in Iron Age France. In brief, by examining grave goods and their placement in graves to argue a changing nature of gender in the later Iron Age (Late Hallstatt to middle La Tene Periods). He makes an argument in favor of unrestricted, or possibly mutliple gender roles transforming into a more gender divided society through contact with the mediterreanian. --24.21.45.224 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There may be a common haplogroup, but are we really in a position to call that haplogroup Celtic? Celtic is an "include all" word nowadays. Was it celtic culture or celtic people that spread into Iberia before moving North into Ireland? We should be very careful before attributing names to haplogroups. --86.146.194.32 15:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

How to add extra links to the ‘See also’ section?

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)

Celts in Britain

I quote:

A large portion of the indigenous populations of Britain and Ireland today may be partially descended from the ancient peoples that have long inhabited these lands, before the coming of Celtic and later Germanic peoples, language and culture. Little is known of their original culture and language, but remnants may remain in the names of some geographical features, such as the rivers Clyde, Tamar and Thames, whose etymology is unclear but almost certainly derive from a pre-Celtic substrate.[citation needed]

Before the coming of the Celts - citation needed. Again we see the word 'may be' as in 'populations of Britain and Ireland today may be partially descended from the ancient peoples ' - citation or is this pure POV ?

It isn't worded well is it? There are plenty of sources that suggest the modern people of 'these islands' are not just partially but overwhelmingly descended from the Ancient Britons, and that the Celtic and germanic 'cultures' that are inplace were possibly put in place or passed over from visiting/assimilated minorities. Gazh 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Take care with the use of the words "Ancient Britons" - the term "Britons" is widely accepted to refer to a branch of the Celts. On the other hand, the prior indigeneous populace is believed to have been "Pictish".Gabhala 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Gabhala, the Picts inhabited what is roughly modern day Scotland, the Ancient Britons is an umbrella term that existed before people differentiated the Picts from the other indiginous peoples of Britain. Gazh 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Names - another laughing stock for this article

I quote:

The name "Gauls" English "Gaul(s)" and Latin Gallus or Galli might be from an originally Celtic ethnic or tribal name (perhaps borrowed into Latin during the early 400s BC Celtic expansions into Italy). Its root may be the Common Celtic *galno, meaning "power" or "strength".

Again and again we see the words 'might be' and 'may be' - where is the proof ? - where is the 'Beef'. 'Celt' was a word that was invented in 1829. Come up with some evidence!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.67.99 (talk • contribs)

The word 'Celt' was not invented in 1829. It was borrowed from the ancient Greek. Gabhala 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I quote:

The word "Welsh" The word "Welsh" is Germanic, yet it may ultimately have a Celtic source. It may be the result of an early borrowing (in the 4th century BC) of the Celtic tribal name Volcae into early Germanic (becoming the Proto-Germanic *Walh-, "foreigner of the Roman lands" and the suffixed form *-walhisk).

Again - we see the words 'may be' - where is the proof?

The word Welsh means slave or foriegner in Old English. That is where it comes from.

And the word slave as we know it came into English from Latin, where it was derived from Slav. I think my point is clear. Gabhala 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I quote:

In the Middle Ages certain districts of what is now Germany were known as Welschland as opposed to Deutschland, and the word is cognate with Vlach (see: Etymology of Vlach) and Walloon as well as with the "-wall" in "Cornwall".

Where is the proof? How has 'Deucthland' ever been known as 'Welshland?' How has is EVER been so? The Saxons within Germany using old Englsh may have used the word Welsh to descibe other foriegn Geemanic tribes - but that has NOTHING to do with Celtic. The Germanic tribes of which there were about 80 or so were NOT Celtic. In fact no one knows who the Celts were.

Laughing stock.

The article is not saying that Deutschland was called Welschland. Reread it more carefully. FilipeS 11:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it has no administrative status, the area around Bodensee is still -to this day- sometimes referred to as Welschland. As for no-one knowing who the Celts were, that is utterly false - the Celtic culture began in what is now Austria and Bavaria in Germany. What is unclear is how far and to what extent this culture spread, and to what degree it was adopted in some of the fringe areas of what is broadly considered to have been Celtic Europe. Gabhala 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The name 'Welsh'

In this ection I have removed the statement that Germanic people were 'ultimately of Celtic origin.' Bull. Prove it.

Removal of

In the Middle Ages certain districts of what is now Germany were known as Welschland as opposed to Deutschland, and the word is cognate with Vlach (see: Etymology of Vlach) and Walloon as well as with the "-wall" in "Cornwall".

Pure POV - citation needed.

The origins of "Welsh" and similar cognates in other Germanic languages are well attested in works dealing with the relevant periods/regions/peoples. Try reading rather than just demanding citations and proof and accusing POV on issues you plainly know nothing about. siarach 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of:

The Volcae were one of the Celtic peoples that for two centuries barred the southward expansion of the Germanic tribes in what is now central Germany on the line of the Harz mountains and into Saxony and Silesia.

Mo proof of this. Where is the proof for this claim. And don't quote books on the subject. Where is the proof.

Removal of:

The English form Gaul comes from the French Gaule and Gaulois, which is the traditional rendering of Latin Gallia and Gallus, -icus respectively. However, the diphthong au points to a different origin, namely a Romance adaptation of the Germanic *Walha-. See Gaul: Name.

Again - where is the proof? You are making this stuff up.

Cumbric etc

I quote:

Cornish aside, the last attested Celtic language native to England was Cumbric, spoken in Cumbria and southern Scotland and which may have survived until the 13th century, but was most likely dead by the eleventh. As in the case of Cornish, there have been recent attempts to recreate it, based on medieval miracle plays and other surviving sources.[citation needed]

Again the words 'may have' - somethimg put in here that is stated 'almost' as a fact. Where is the proof? I dont know where Cumbric is ? But I don't have to. I just know that someone is trying to make out that 'something' is Celtic. Get some proof why dont you. So I link to Cumbric to find that someone has borrowe words from Wales. Proof! Citations.

I don't see what's your problem. Cumbric was a Celtic language. This is well known. FilipeS 11:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote: Cumbric was a Celtic language. This is well known Kinda needs a citation doesn't it! How is it well known?

You can't be serious... FilipeS 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

You can't be serious. Yes I am. That is the problem. This Celt thing has no proof of anything. So citation for the existance of 'Cumbric' please. Translate the sentance I have just written here into 'Cumbric.'

Removal of:

the last attested Celtic language native to England was Cumbric, spoken in Cumbria and southern Scotland and which may have survived until the 13th century, but was most likely dead by the eleventh.

Citation needed. Proof that a language called Cumbric ever existed. Was ever called 'Cumbric' and can be reproduced.

Citations:

Jackson, Kenneth H. (1953). Language and History in Early Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Russell, Paul (1995). An Introduction to the Celtic Languages. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-10082-8.

Schmidt, Karl Horst (1993). "Insular Celtic: P and Q Celtic", in M. J. Ball and J. Fife (ed.): The Celtic Languages. London: Routledge, 64-98. ISBN 0-415-01035-7. Gabhala 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Image:

Isle of Man

The Isle of Man has definite connections with the Norse and Iceland in particluar. Is this article trying to claim that the Isle of Man is Celtic. How so. Are Vikings now Celtic. Citation please.

True, if it says that, it needs a citation; however, the island was, if I remember rightly, long controlled by the Vikings. Nyttend`

The Celtic connection with the Isle of Man is attested by the fact that Manx Gaelic is one of the two official languages of the island. Gabhala 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Man was, like much of North West Scotland and Ireland and England, under Norse control for a period. However the native language/culture which was Gaelic absorbed the viking incomers. Is it some kind of hobby of yours to demand citations for facts which are in no way controversial or disputed? siarach 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man

REmoval - no proof that this country is currently a Celtic country. Like most of this stuff - pure Bull.

Removal of Cornwall flag as this is not a Celtic Nation it is a county in England UK

Perhaps you are confused on the definition of the word "nation": it refers to a shared cultural identity - it does not necessarily imply sovereignity (e.g. the Sioux Nation)Gabhala 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

REmoval AGAIN of the Isle of Man Flag as this Island ifs primarily of Viking Norse Languagfe and is NOT a Celtic Nation.

The island was without doubt under Norse rule for a significant time, but the previous inhabitants, who did not just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of the Vikings, were Celtic. So, while the government of the island was Norse, the peasantry was Celtic. Your thinking on this is anachronistic: Britain was ruled by the Normans for a time - does that mean every English person is in fact French? Gabhala 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No - proof needed.

isle iof Man has been put back again with NO PROOG GIven - removal for 2nd time.

No "proog"? Don't be silly. Look up Manx Gaelic. Paul B 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is known as one of The Six Celtic Nations for good reason. Its name in Gaelic is Ellan Vannin. The Isle of Man itself is named after a Celtic god - Manannan, son of Lir. The island surely has a greater Celtic connection than a lot of other places mentioned in connection to the Celts. (Sourced: "The Mammoth Book of Celtic Myths and Legends", Peter Berresford Ellis.) Dragonhelmuk 17:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the majority of people in Manx only need to speak Gaelic in order for them to be considered a Celtic Nation. They may have been Norse from genetics in the past, however, Celtic is still a language and not a race as can clearly be demonstrated by the fact that Neolithic agriculture introduced the Celtic language. [[5]] [[6]] What perturbs me is the fact that only the county of Connaught in Ireland and a few other counties surrounding it only speak Gaelic making Ireland a Celtic Nation while only a half to 1/3 of the rest of country understands or very rarely speaks Gaelic on an occasional basis. Anyone have inputs to this?

First, a minor correction - Connaught is not a county, it's a province - the county you are most likely thinking of is Galway. Official Gaeltachts - areas where Gaelic is spoken as the primary language - exist in counties Kerry, Waterford, Galway, and Donegal. I am open to correction on this, but I believe there are Gaeltacht areas in all of the counties on the western seaboard.

Manx genetics are quite likely a mixture of Brythonic Celts, Gaelic Celts (from the Irish Province of Leinster, in particular), Viking/Norse, and more recently, English.

The particular situation you describe is true of all the modern "Celtic Nations". English is the primary language of Ireland, but Gaelic is taught in practically all schools. It is an official language by law. Under the English occupation of Ireland, the language and culture were deliberately repressed to a greater or lesser extent at various times. The language has survived on the Western fringes of Ireland, where English influence was less - the land is poor, and was of little interest to the occupiers - just like the Highlands of Scotland. Gabhala 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)