This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Spain and Portugal were not at all countries of Celtic culture in the iron age. I see no source or proof in the article. I add a message. --Vikivika (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There are 15 or 16 cited sources in that section of this article alone. In fact, it is probably the most intensively sourced portion of the entire article. As mentioned by dab, there is more information and several more sources at CeltiberiansGabhala (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd personally second at least a mention of Iberian and Vasconic culture in the text. And as far as Tartessian is concerned, do we have any others besides Koch who consider it Celtic? Trigaranus (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no problems with that - in fact the Iberian culture is already linked from the text - The Celtiberian group of central Spain and the upper Ebro valley. This group originated when Celts (mainly Gauls and some Celtic-Germanic groups) migrated from what is now France and integrated with the local Iberian people.. As for Tartessian, I have no idea if anybody besides Koch have published anything on this. On the other hand, I feel that the fact that he has published on it is notable. Gabhala (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I frankly don't know why we suddenly get so many anons protesting that Iberia was Celt-free.
Is this some recent fad on the Spanish patriotic blogosphere? It must be pointed out, of course, that Iberia was never entirely Celtic, and that the Celts were intrusive to Iberia (as to Britain), present only for a couple of centuries before they were Romanized. Of course there were always lots of non-Celtic cultures in Iberia as well. This is beside the point, this being the articles on Celts, not about non-Celts. --dab(𒁳) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this recent spate is originating in Spain, by some strange coincidence, both the recent IP protesters network addresses originated from servers in the Lyon/Dijon area, and Sleeping Water is also French. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. As for non-Celtic cultures, I feel it's always notable to at least mention and link to neighbouring contemporary cultures, even if we don't go into a detailed discussion of same in the article. Gabhala (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sleeping Water (incorrectly) believes he is blocked from editing this article. Hence the anon IPs and sockpuppet. His original edits (before registering as Sleeping Water) were from an IP in Dijon. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
They can be Hispano-French too, don't forget for instance, that the surname Garcia ranks 14th in the list of the most common surnames in France. Nortmannus (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. Equally likely is a petty French nationalism producing an unwillingless to allow others a claim to be Gallic. Paul B (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
doesn't strike me as likely. If "Celtic=French" in a clouded mind of a French nationalist, wouldn't they need to attack the Celticity of Britain and Austria just as much as that of Iberia?
since our experience with naive editor shows, Celts are generally seen as "sexy" and people tend to "want" to be Celtic rather than denounce Celticity. Why this is, I don't know. It's a bit like the "Illyrian identity" of the Albanians, it's always nice to be descended from a "mysterious ancient people" about whom practically nothing is known. So in this sense, this "denouncing of Celticity", if it is from a Spanish nationalist point of view, is atypical. I do not pretend to understand Spanish nationalism. Normally, there isn't one, and Spaniards have local nationalisms or "regionalisms" instead. For these, the historical fact that Iberia was full of a whole range of different Iron Age peoples is unproblematic, or indeed desired, as the other regionalisms can be conceived of as "foreign". Perhaps this is some new current of a "pan-Spanish" nationalism? --dab(𒁳) 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if nationalism is the root of it at all. More likely that it's just another individual who's got a particular idea in their head they're convinced is "the truth", and is pushing it tendentiously. Fortunately people like that tend to be easy to spot.--Cúchullaint/c 13:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think that someone with a french IP or who lives in France has to be french or spanish? The IP being from France or even Spain does not mean the person is even ethnically european. You could think of it as someone with a fixed mind on a celtic free Hispania or with a fixed mind that the extention of the Iberians is from southern France to northern Africa. The root could be another kind of "nationalism". The IP from France got on a cruzade (should say Jihad ?) and wiped the La Tene map from the portuguese , italian and spanish pages and left nasty comments on the spanish discussion page. Probably some young fellow with strong convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.84.26 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Since when should be Portuguese people condidered as "ethnically european" ? Physically speaking, they are rather mediterranean people. --Yankeewave (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It's been some time since the Mediterranean race has been considered a valid ethnic group. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The Portuguese are not really white. The Mediterranean race is a transition between the white and black race.--Yankeewave (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we are all thrilled to learn that, but this is the page on Celts, not on the racial make up of the Portuguese. I'm sure you comments will be treated with the respect they deserve on the Portuguese people page. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Amusing comments, as we got to the comics section of the celt page. The transition between the white and black is some kind of Metamorphosis stage, or some range of the color Wavelength and Frequency? As Bryan Sykes and Oppenheimer's genetic findings revealed , the British and Irish gene pool comes from Spain [[1]] we all certain learned by now that a great part of the western half of Europe should be in a cocoon stage.
Do you mean that one from Issy (F)? I was wondering about that guy. He really put up a surprising show of daftness. Trigaranus (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't think he has to be anything. We are just speculating. The endless varieties of nationalist emotion are fascinating. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I mean that one, his arguments got a lot more stressed here: [2]
Nationalistic emotion? I saw someone having the same reaction because he got kicked out by his spanish girl friend and decided to take revenge on every thing spanish. All kinds of emotions could cool off if the concept that the ancient people had about the celts was well explained, and if the anachronic academic concepts of material culture and linguistics were explained each one separated from the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.87.34 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, one only starts looking for a national identity in an ancestor people who died 2000 years ago when the living disapoint you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.62.104 (talk • contribs)
It is scandalous to read these racist comments. Spanish people are European white Celtic people,like it or not. And many have ancestors from Germanic roots (Gothic ones). Is Wikipedia a tool of the nordicist propaganda ?--El besto (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No one is taking Yankeewave's comments seriously. Can we please return to discussion of the article now? Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
lol, "racist comments. Spanish people are European white Celtic" -- it takes one to know one, I guess :p
But Doug is right, we've had our bit of fun, but we are just feeding the trolls at this point. Nothing of this is a serious contribution to the article topic. --dab(𒁳) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Move along, everyone, nothing to see here.--Cúchullaint/c 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, guys. The question was not about the racial composition of Spain, but about Celts. This article is not neutral. Check-up.--Vikivika (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Fed up of Spanish propaganda.--Elgor007 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, move along, everyone. Too much trolls by here...Stdarg (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Just one, I think...Gabhala (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why all this buzz about Spanish people ? Racism ? Nordicism from anti-spanish or pro-spanish ? We must tell the truth to the current users : Celtic culture does not exist no longer. So, it is unuseful to claim Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Etruscan...roots. Look forward, not behind.--Foresthunter (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably some Latino who wants to become white. Celts were White Caucasian peoples. The Portuguese people belongs to the Mediterranean race. This fact is well established. It is inconsistent to say that the Portuguese could be Celtic peoples.--Yankeewave (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a forum to discuss racial ideas. And I'm sure it's not here. Thank you, let's leave it at that. This article is not concerned with "race". Any further edits on that topic will be considered extremely boring and will subsequently be removed. Trigaranus (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is very long (7 pages of archive !). I'm not racist again Portuguese people (the precedent user should be blocked). But it is a weird thing that only one user has succeeded in integrating Portugal in the Celtic world with so few sources. While other users has not been allowed to show the controversial side of the Celtic question in Portugal. If I was told many years ago that the Celts had reached the Mediterranean Sea, I would have laugh a lot! (pardon my English, I'm not a native speaker).--Highlandist (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is strange. Unless you know that another user, Catfish Jim, is also a Portuguese. In fact, he is a British-Portuguese from London who has a passion for the Celtic culture (he thinks he has Scottish ancestries). We have met in several forum, more or less "celtomaniac" ones. His real name is Albino. I guess that a lot of those portuguese users are probably socks. --Smallsherlock (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I'm not Portuguese or from London, and I've never gone by the name Albino. I think you're confusing me for someone else.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
WHat's wrong with you, man ? You have problems with portuguese people (a lot of Spanish don't love'em, but well...) ?--El besto (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No. But what makes me laugh is that when you read this article, we really have the feeling that Portuguese are adopting some kind of curious ideology, feeling themselves as "germanic" or "nordic". It's very funny, because in Germany, they were considered until recently not better than black Turkish peoples. I guess that the fact Brazilian and Portuguese people are nearly 200 million worldwide, they can get easier some force to put their ideas... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallsherlock (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
First, we are not talking about Germanic peoples, but Celtic peoples. Second, if you are German, you would probably in a better place here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
note: I see the above has degenerated completely into a futile forum debate with racist overtones.
Everyone read WP:TALK. If you cannot put this on track making a coherent case based on academic literature (NOT urls you googled on the internets) and make a specific suggestion on how the article can be improved in the light of the literature you cited, I am going to put on my admin hat and remove this entire thread. --dab(𒁳) 07:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this thread becomes disapointing. But what do you want to improve ? Each time we try to check-up anything here, there are some users who revert you, without explanation of the administrators. We don't know if Catalonia was Celtic or not, the top map says "no", but we don't know why (source ?). And why would be Andalusia free of the antic Celtic culture and not Southern Portugal (no, no, I'm not racist against Portuguese). On the other hand, there are some spanish authors who doubt about the Celtic presence in antic times even in northern regions (Celts would have come only in Middle age in Scotland or Ireland). I have asked sources, the answers were about the racial features of Spanish peoples with stupid comments, or some sources who quote authors, who quote themselves other ancient authors, who quoted authors...This is unworthy of a real encyclopedia.--Vikivika (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
your key is "there are some spanish authors who doubt about the Celtic presence in antic times". Cite them. Author, title, year, ISBN, page number, quote. Then, if it turns out that you are pointing out a quotable academic minority opinion, it will be added to the article. It's as easy as this. --dab(𒁳) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You forget the holy law of the consensus... --Vikivika (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY is bedrock policy - Dab's right here, let's see the details about these authors. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we get an administrator to look at closing this thread? I personally strongly suspect it's nothing more than someone's personal playground but I'm not really willing to try instigate a checkuser investigation for some inane stuff on a talk page just yet (though I certainly think there's enough evidence to warrant it). Gabhala (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Second that. Dab, weren't you talking about a hat of yours just before? Would be greatly appreciated. Trigaranus (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Here we are again. Catfish and his three friends have decided to reinforce their little clan and to call "heretic" all the people who want to bring other sources or informations about Celts...Nothing new. Despite seven pages of discussion and about twenty or thirty sources, they have decided that E-Keltoi should be the unic source of the article. Even E-Keltoi has several times put in relief the Iberic controversy. This masquerade has gone on far too long. We are not in Gabhalapedia... --Smallsherlock (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, since all I've said is that we need reliable sources. You've contributed nothing constructive to this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You neither. And if you have no idea, I suggest you to read the seven pages of the discussion instead of spitting in the air...--Smallsherlock (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:SOCK. There are legitimate reasons to use a second user account, but this is not one of them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Celts ~ Bell Beakers?
The Bell Beaker culture or syndrom spread from the west around the Mediterranian and the Atlantic Ocean. Indo-Europeans, however, spread from the east into western Europe. Thus, Bell Beakers cannot be a "root" of the Celts, but were surely at least a part of the substratum leading to the Celtic languages. HJJHolm (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The Bell beaker period predates the Celts by more than a millennium anyway. It could at best have been an Italo-Celtic item.
As far as I am aware, Bell beakers are considered a continuation of the Corded Ware horizon, so this would definitely go together with early Indo-European presence in Europe.
But I see what you mean. Our "minority views" section needs to clarify what is being proposed, and in what relation to mainstream views.
"Martín Almagro Gorbea proposed ... initial roots in the Bell Beaker culture" -- what does this even mean? Does this author assume that the Beaker culture is "at least a part of the substratum leading to the Celts" (reasonable enough), or does he suppose the Beaker culture is itself "Celtic" (not reasonable)?
"John Koch and Barry Cunliffe have suggested that Celtic origins lie with the Atlantic Bronze Age" -- again, what are "Celtic origins"? If they argue that the ABA contributed to Celtiberian and Insular Celtic culture as a substrate, that's reasonable enough. If they argue that the Gauls were derived from the ABA, that's further on the lunatic fringe.
In addition, he was altering dates to make his conversations with himself seem more credible, and signing his contributions with other editors' signatures. See here for example.
The extent of his disruptive activity came to light when he started systematically deleting other editors contributions to wikipedia. Hopefully, that's the end of it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm always surprised anew with what people choose to waste their time online... Apparently the great Celtssockpuppetry extravaganza had spilled over onto commons as well. If you've recently had any deletion requests at commons, it would be best to check out who they were coming from. (Mind you, my map really wasn't very good.) [3], [4], [5], [6]. Trigaranus (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
'Selt usage in article of ancient Celts
The pronunciation of Selts is not relevant to the main article. It does not refer to it anywhere nor a link. A citation needs to be added or a detail subtext devoted to name variations. Other wise it clutters the article. The only pronunciation current in article is in reference to ancient Greek, Roman notations (Keltoi, Celtus). Another suggestion is add link in reference to: See Also... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.7.221 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Celts with a soft C was the most common pronunciation until around the mid-20th century. I don't know what you mean by "pronunciation current in the article". The article is written not spoken. Paul B (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It certainly should be mentioned that 'selt' was historically a common pronunciation, but after some reflection, I would tend to agree with the IP editor. 'Selt' is just not in common usage any more and placing it in the lead lends it undue emphasis. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 09:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That would only increase the amount of space given to it! Paul B (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but it could be done with the discussion it requires which is not really possible or appropriate in the lead. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 09:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with "Kelts, sometimes also Selts" in the lede? The lede must summarise the article; alternative pronunciations are regularly given in all kinds of articles; this article discusses the pronunciations fully later on. Excessive "not giving people the wrong impression" smacks of trying to use WP to Right Great Wrongs.Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Selts is an entirely legitimate pronunciation in English. The IP seems to be under the mistaken impression that it is somehow "wrong" and so must be suppressed (tell that to the French!). It just so happens that the K pronunciation has largely taken over with this word, while we still say 'Saesar' not 'Kaesar' and 'Sisero', not 'Kikero'. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::::Maybe I shouldn't comment, and hadn't planned to, but it really needs to be in the article. Not only does the OED give it as a pronunciation (although as the 2nd pronunciation of course), but I also think we need to mention the the 's' pronunciation is given to the word when it is used as in Celt (tool) (a weird article as it says "By the beginning of the twentieth century, the term had largely been abandoned by archaeologists" although someone seems to have forgotten to pass it on to all the archaeologists article writing journal articles and books which still use the term. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
99.9, what part of "see names of the Celts" do you find difficult to understand? The link is there precisely because of people like you who think the only "correct" way of pronouncing the name is "kelts".
Sorry, but you are late to this discussion. We already have an entire article dedicated to the question, at names of the Celts. You should read it.
Look, English is a rather widely-spoken language, and no native speaker can claim the authority to say which pronunciations are "common" and which aren't. You can at best speak for your own community, say British or American or Australian. But fortunately we do not need to rely on primary reports of native speakers: this is why the dictionary was invented, and there are a number of excellent English dictionaries, the foremost among them known as the OED. If you want to make any argument on "correct" or "common" pronunciation, you need to rely on such a secondary source per WP:CITE. --dab(𒁳) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, it would however be interesting to examine when and how the pronunciation /kelts/ arose.
It seems to be a deliberate archaism, as Paul points out, nobody would say /kaisar/ or /kikero/ in English.
My suspicion is that this is related to the Celtic Revival and spin-offs like modern Celtic identity and Celtic Neopaganism (see also Magick) -- the "Celts" were set up as the ultimate antithesis to the English, and thus a point was made by Verfremdung, i.e. de-Anglicising and de-Latinising their name into something that sounded more 'foreign' and thus mystical.
But this is speculation and we would need to look for sources to cover this. --dab(𒁳) 11:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you're right. Here's an early example from the 'Celtic Union' arguing in favour of 'Kelt':
"The word Celt", The Celt: A weekly periodical of Irish national literature edited by a committee of the Celtic Union, pp. 287–288, November 28, 1857, retrieved November 8, 2010
Wow, that's brilliant, so fair-minded and moderate: "Of all the nations that have hitherto lived on the face of the earth, the English have the worst mode of pronouncing learned languages. This is admitted by the whole human race….This poor meagre sordid language resembles nothing so much as the hissing of serpents or geese." Paul B (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Bear in mind this was written in Dublin in 1857. There were certain tensions between the Irish (certainly those who identified as 'celtic') and the English at the time. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 16:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? Tensions between the English and the Irish? That's news to me ;). Paul B (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
of course, the irony is not so much in the Irish dissing the English and their language, but in their doing so in English. --dab(𒁳) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This probably deserves a more thorough treatment. There is another example from the same journal here (October 24, 1857), but there are also examples from Welsh texts from the 19th century:
"Pronunciation of "Celt" (reader's letter)", The Red dragon, the national magazine of Wales, vol. 6, p. 476, 1884
Pronunciation of "Celt"-
Will anyone tell me the true pronunciation of "Celt"; In an address to the students of Lampeter College a few years back, I heard Professor Rhys, of Oxford, say "Selt"; but I am told by almost every indigenous Welsh scholar of my acquaintance that the true pronunciation is "Kelt." Cannot the matter be definitely settled by a correspondence in the Notes and Queries department of the National Magazine?
I do not think "The indigenous Welsh Scholars" of "A Perplexed Saxon's" acquaintance are any authority on this question at all. Professor Rhys is doubtless right in saying "Selt," which is the pronunciation adopted by Webster, Craig (Dictionary of Technical Terms), and others, the best orthœpists in the language.
(The above letters were 'mined' from Google books snippet view. Unfortunately, the second letter appears to be truncated, and I can't trick the search engine into showing me more. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 11:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
So, we seem to be able to establish that the /kelt/ pronunciation was being propagated in Celtic nationalism against the dictionaries from the 1850s.
It would now be interesting to learn from what time the dictionaries began to recognize /kelt/ as a valid pronunciation alongside the traditional /selt/, especially when the OED first adopted /kelt/. The letter C of the OED (NED) appeared in 1893, so it would be interesting to know if that edition already had /kelt/. --dab(𒁳) 12:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The influence of nationalism on the pronunciation is there for everyone to see, but I haven't found any secondary sources on it... potential problems with WP:OR or sufficiently obvious to invoke WP:IAR?
I don't know about early editions of the OED, but there is the Imperial Dictionary of 1855, which deals a bit with the usage of "selt" [7]. Any discussion of this in the article absolutely must use the word "orthoëpy"! Catfish Jim& the soapdish 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
your imperial dictionary is sufficient to establish that the only pronunciation current in the mid 19th century was /selt/. Here is another example (1859) of /selt/ as the only recorded pronunciation. We should now look for the earliest recording of /kelt/ as an accepted pronunciation.
Your other references can be used that the pronunciation /kelt/ was propagated in Irish/Welsh nationalism during the 1850s/1880s. In stating this we are just sticking to the facts, and we can avoid generalizing OR-ish statements like "pronunciation was influenced by nationalism". --dab(𒁳) 20:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a nice one: A dictionary of English pronunciation for Welsh speakers, published in Caerfyrddin in 1861, giving both options /seltik/ and /keltik/ (in this order) for the pronunciation of English Celtic. --dab(𒁳) 20:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, it's a better job than I would have managed. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 10:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
you did all the research, so thank you. I polished it some more; I realize it's geeky but I am fascinated by this sort of thing. --dab(𒁳) 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
IP here, I never said the pronunciation of Selt was wrong! At the time, there was NO reflection in the article about pronunciations nor was there a detail of linguistics. And it did not make sense to added into an article of Ancient people at the time. French, Italian (Roman), Spanish, Irish/Scots prefer in reference to Celts as Gael or Gaul, Goidels. So this Victorian mid 1800's artificial definition into outdated English dictionary is now out mode. Oxford dictionary in detail states the English language is NOT very English. It,English, was during Tudor/Stewart dynasties was looked down upon and only poor, ignorant common people used it rarely. Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and French were the classic languages spoken and written at the time upto late 1600/early 1700s. It was this melting pot motion that we have a ever evolving English today. The French/Latin rules into English grammar is what makes English the most misunderstood language. This past year, in England, the French/Latin grammar rule of -i before -e unless after -c rule is now thrown out. In future, e before i and i before e after c will be both excepted in COMMON language. Ain't is now excepted in both American and English dictionary even though I don't like it. Google is now a word introduced into English dictionary. So the few here that keep adding the Selt version into this article need to review all articles to include dictionary rules of all variations.
Again, I questioned the Selt version because it does not reflect Celts very well since the very use was not practised in French, Latin (Roman), Spanish in regards to these ancient people.
German, Greek, Danish, Dutch, Belarusian, Russian, Filipino, Finnish, Macedonian, Hungarian, Czech, Serbian, Welsh, Slovak, Latvin pronounce it with a /k/. Italian and Latin pronounce it with a /Ch/.
All documentaries now use the pronunciation with /k/ in regards to ancient Celt people. We can agree that Celt/Gael are the same people based on Y-DNA evidence. So throughout Greek/Roman times the historians and observers were correct the Keltoi/Gauls/Gael were the same race throughout middle Europe and Spainish regions. Also, keep in mind the Celtic people did not write down or keep records very well. The only tribe spelling Celt was in Portugal observed by Julius Caesar. Funny, Portugal sounds like port-u-gaul.
I would prefer in the lead that both Celt and Gael be present with a link to those variations and pronunciations like the dictionary when describing the origins in brief.
I now like the latest addition Kelt or Selt. But like these people to be represented with all available definitions and variations with of course links to their own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.73.221 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
"Poor, ignorant common people used [English] rarely" in Tudor and Stuart times. That would cover Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, Bacon, Marvell, Webster, Donne and Milton, I suppose. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The standard pronunciation in French is Selts, as it is in Italian and Spanish. But it does not really matter what the pronunciation is in other languages, or what it was in ancient times. In English both versions are used, but the K prnunciation is now far more common. You say "We can agree that Celt/Gael are the same people based on Y-DNA evidence". No we can't. Gaelic is one form of Celtic identity, no more than that. It's not more or less Celtic than Brythonic or Gaulish. The Irish now speak English. The Gauls now speak French. Neither are more or less "innately" Celtic than the other, though the Irish are probably more likely to self-identify with Celticity than the French. But of course the French do frequently call themselves Gauls. Also Gauls are not the same as Gaels. See Gaels#Terminology and Names of the Celts. As for "i before e" rules, they have no relevance whatever. Things are spelled the way they are spelled, however weirdly. Paul B (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Paul, the anon clearly doesn't have the first idea what they are talking about, so why feed the trolls.
As for "the K pronunciation is now far more common", I don't know if this is the case. We have a 1998 reference claiming that /k/ is preferred "by most students of Celtic culture", whatever that is supposed to mean. OED still lists /seltik/ before /keltik/. --dab(𒁳) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Your conversation on this interested me so I consulted experts on written English who make their living from teaching the correct usage to multi-national companies. The accepted methodology confirms that 99.9 is indeed correct in saying we must use only the "k" pronunciation for Celts (the people) as per WP:VERIFY. The following is this accepted methodology:
The English Wikipedia is for an international audience and hence the standard language is International English (also called World English).
The standard of International English is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary).
The current preferred usage (including pronunciation) is the only one we must use in writing International English for the Wikipedia. For pronunciation this is shown by the first (left-hand most) of the choices listed.
The current preferred usage is to be obtained via Internet lookup from Oxford Dictionaries website.
Online lookup at the Oxford Dictionaries website shows that the "k" pronunciation is the current preferred usage for "Celt" and so is the one that must be used on the Wikipedia.
sorry, but this is nonsense.
I am glad that after consulting numerous eminent experts you have managed to figure out that the thing to do is consult OED.
But oed.com gives "/seltik/, /keltik/". It lists the soft pronunciation first, even against alphabetical order. But it also expresses no preference for either. Both are equally valid. --dab(𒁳) 16:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
relating to the Celts or their languages, which constitute a branch of the Indo-European family and include Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Cornish, and several extinct pre-Roman languages such as Gaulish.
a member of a group of peoples inhabiting much of Europe and Asia Minor in pre-Roman times . Their culture developed in the late Bronze Age around the upper Danube, and reached its height in the La Tène culture (5th to 1st centuries bc ) before being overrun by the Romans and various Germanic peoples.
a native of any of the modern nations or regions in which Celtic languages are (or were until recently) spoken; a person of Irish, Highland Scottish, Manx, Welsh, or Cornish descent.
uh, yes, I was referring to the actual oed.com site.
I think oxforddictionaries.com may be some sort of teaser site?
Anyway, oed.com has "/seltik/, /keltik/", against the alphabet.
oxforddictionaries.com switched this to alphabet order, "/keltik/, /seltik/".
Neither expresses any preference. Both pronunciations are equally valid, which is what we have established about two years ago. It isn't clear what you want. --dab(𒁳) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I did check it out at oed.com and several others as well and you are correct - your approach is verified - both are equally valid with some giving the preference one way and some the other way. There are some free online dictionaries which have sound files and these make the distinction between Celt (the people) with a "k" sound and celt (the tool) with an "s" sound - not sure if this marks a trend in International English pronunciation though. Thanks for discussing this topic.Jembana (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Y-DNA
random comments on Y-DNA haplogroups, nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Y-DNA of Gaelia, Gaul, Celts, Gallia has the same genetic haplogroup. When the Greeks/Romans wrote of their experiences over the centuries with these tribes they classified them as whole even though they are seperate tribes with separate customs. Western Atlantic Haplogroup R1b1 is most concentrated in Ireland, Basque, Highlands, Brittany France, Wales by 80%. It is the most common genetic haplogroup in western Europe. These groups still speak native languages (Celtic/Gaelic/Brythonic in variations in their regions). I was refering to that. Same race.
Ex: Jews/Muslims share the same Y-DNA as well as native Americans/Asians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.73.221 (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
DNA may trace lineages, but it is meaningless to say that widely divergent peoples belong to the same "race". There is extensive discussion of the distribution of the haplogroup on Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA), which it is certainly concentrated in areas that are now identfied as "Celtic nations"; that does not mean it originated with the first Celtic speakers. In fact Celtic languages survived in the most isolated areas in which there was less population influx, so the haplogroup may represent lineages from pre-Celtic populations. Notably, it includes the Basque-speaking areas. Paul B (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm only discussing Y-DNA (males only) that have been tested by archaeologist in these regions. For all we know, it could be smurfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.73.221 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that comment means something to you, but to me it simply means you you didn't understand my point. Read the relevant article. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, Bob: Your link from how to pronounce the c to a rant about DNA (!) is impressive in its pointlessness. Nobody reading those lines will ever get back the time he lost doing that. And Paul B, let's leave it at that. There's nothing to be seen here. Trigaranus (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Trig, make up your mind. If it is "pointlessness" then why would you be impressed? If you have no factual contribution with references to add to the discussion then take your own advice and "Let's leave it at that". Condescending noted. The discussion was between the user Paul and I to settle one thing and it took a different turn at the end. At this point, Paul and I have settled on the "c" pronunciation issue. And the other matter we both can acknowledge is not relevant to the first issue. There are no issues at this time related to main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.73.221 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)99.9.73.221 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
99.9, please stop abusing Wikipedia talkpages as a discussion forum about your ideas on genetics and race. Or at least have the minimal decency to take your business to Talk:Race and genetics where your musings will at least be on topic, even though still in violation of WP:TALK. --dab(𒁳) 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright or no ?
Hello. I have found this text on the net, which can be useful for improvement. Does it make copyright problems ?
[snipped copyrighted text]
And why can't we see a picture of a typical Celtic soldier, or statuaries like these ones ?
of course it "makes copyright problems", you cannot just copy-paste some text you found on the internet.
Your text dates to the 1990s, originally hosted at the venerable "The Gaelic Homepage" at sunsite.unc.edu, now at http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html .
The Celtic.warriors.garments-replica.jpg image is fair, but the Keltenfürst Glauberg.jpg imo is a random photoshop job which for some reason combines the Glauberg statue with a photograph of vegetation on a forest floor. But perhaps a cropped version of File:Celts-Iron-age-statues.jpg can be used. --dab(𒁳) 10:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've already added the garments image. Most of the relevant content in the online text is already in the article. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from SniffCoke, 15 December 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
"Gender and sexual norms [...]
Examples of individuals buried with both torcs (generally associated as being female grave goods)[citation needed] as well as weaponry have been identified, and there are questions about the sexing of some skeletons that were buried with warrior assemblages
This is straight out false. Just edit it. Torcs are known to have been unisex.
Done. I assumed your request was simply to remove "(generally associated as being female grave goods)[citation needed]", which I've done. The claim was uncited since early 2008 and seems to contradict torc, so I've removed it per your challenge and WP:BURDEN. This does leave a slight oddity. The article now implies that individuals having been buried with both torcs and weaponry is evidence that women had combat roles; the underlying assumption is that torcs are feminine, which is the claim I've just removed (and don't believe to be true). I suspect the resolution is that torcs were feminine in the particular time, place and culture under discussion, though I haven't clarified that in the article per WP:OR and because I can't access the cited sorce. If anyone can clarify, please do. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course torcs were worn by men, but I don't know whether in the specific archaelogical context under discussion they might be associated with female burials, as you say. I don't have access to that book either, but I've added another citation about weapons found in high-status female graves of the early La Tene period. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
While the article is slowly rising to acceptable quality, I remain a bit irked by the presence of this "Gender and sexual norms" h3 section. I mean, what other article on an major ethno-linguistic super-group of the Iron Age has a section on "gender"? Would this be more at home at Gauls? But then, what article on any people has a "gender and sexual norms" section?
This is like rule 34 of postmodernism, if it exists, you can do gender studies on it.
I am not saying this material is invalid, but the article structure is involuntary comedy: "5. Society: 5.1 Clothing, 5.2 Sex, 5.3 Art". --dab(𒁳) 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note There seems to be a bit of a WP:UNDUE issue going on here, and the section could probably do with a bit of reference checking. For example:
In book VIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC, wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together and "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused"
First of all, book VIII is all about fish... book XIII is the one that is probably of interest here. There is a quote there that almost matches that above, but not quite...
And the Celts, too, although they have the most beautiful women of all the barbarians, still make great favourites of boys; so that some of them often go to rest with two lovers on their beds of hide.
The bit about offering themselves does not seem to appear. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Addendum Okay, I've found it in Diodorus Siculus (8:32). It was referenced, but confusingly so:
32 And now it will be useful to draw a distinction which is unknown to many: The peoples who dwell in the interior above Massalia, those on the slopes of the Alps, and those on this side the Pyrenees mountains are called Celts, whereas the peoples who are established above this land of Celtica in the parts which stretch to the north, both along the ocean and along the Hercynian Mountain, and all the peoples who come after these, as far as Scythia, are known as Gauls; the Romans, however, include all these nations together under a single name, calling them one and all Gauls.
2 The women of the Gauls are not only like the men in their great stature but they are a match for them in courage as well. Their children are usually born with grayish hair, but as they grow older the colour of their hair changes to that of their parents. 3 The most savage peoples among them are those who dwell beneath the Bears and on the borders of Scythia, and some of these, we are told, eat human beings, even as the Britonsº do who dwell on Iris,34 as it is called. 4 And since the valour of these peoples and their savage ways have been famed abroad, some men say that it was they who in ancient times overran all Asia and were called Cimmerians, time having slightly corrupted the word into the name of Cimbrians, as they are now called.35 For it has been their ambition from old to plunder, invading for this purpose the lands of others, and to regard all men with contempt. 5 For they are the people who captured Rome,36 who plundered the sanctuary at Delphi,37 who levied tribute upon a large part of Europe and no small part of Asia, and settled themselves upon the lands of the peoples they had subdued in war, being called in time Greco-Gauls, because they became mixed with the Greeks, and who, as their last accomplishment, have destroyed many large Roman armies. 6 And in pursuance of their savage ways they manifest an outlandish impiety also with respect to their sacrifices; for their criminals they keep prisoner for five years and then impale in honour of the gods, dedicating them together with many other offerings of first-fruits and constructing pyres of great size. Captives also are used by them as victims for their sacrifices in honour of the gods. Certain of them likewise slay, together with the human beings, such animals as are taken in war, or burn them or do away with them in some other vengeful fashion.
7 Although their wives are comely, they have very little to do with them, but rage with lust, in outlandish fashion, for the embraces of males. It is their practice to sleep upon the ground on the skins of wild beasts and to tumble with a catamite on each side.38 And the most astonishing thing of all is that p185they feel no concern for their proper dignity, but prostitute to others without a qualm the flower of their bodies; nor do they consider this a disgraceful thing to do, but rather when anyone of them is thus approached and refuses the favour offered him, this they consider an act of dishonour.
I've read this through a couple of times, and it seems Diodorus Siculus is talking specifically about the Gauls rather than the Celts as a whole? Catfish Jim& the soapdish 16:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
And more... Aristotle doesn't quite say what the section says either:
In whatever city then the women are not under good regulations, we must look upon one half of it as not under the restraint of law, as it there happened; for the legislator, desiring to make his whole city a collection of warriors with respect to the men, he most evidently accomplished his design; but in the meantime the women were quite neglected, for they live without restraint in every improper indulgence and luxury. So that in such a state riches will necessarily be in general esteem, particularly if the men are governed by their wives, which has been the case with many a brave and warlike people except the Celts, and those other nations, if there are any such, who openly practise pederasty.
All of this is more than adequate evidence that gender issues are one of the things that make Celts distinctive in the eyes of ancient writers. I think this is true of many modern commentators too. So I don't see why there should be a problem with the section. I'm not sure what it is you think these sources are saying that contradicts what is currently written there. In some cases the language you quote is just Victorianish evasiveness in translation ("make great favourites of boys; so that some of them often go to rest with two lovers on their beds.") Aristotle seems to be saying exactly what the article says. Yes, he says there may be 'other nations' that 'openly practice pederasty' but apparently he can't think of any, so the statement in the article seems to be essentially correct as a summary of his words ('most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because of openly preferred male lovers'). Paul B (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think it needs rewriting for accuracy... I believe Atheneus is misrepresented somewhat. I'm also not sure what the addition of refs 69 to 71 adds to the section. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well the VIII instead of XIII was clearly just an accidental slip. The rest is reproduced from the account of Poseidonius (via Diodorus, Strabo and Athenaeus) given by David Rankin in Celts and the Classical World. To clarify, the words quoted are Rankin's [8]. We are generally supposed to prefer authoritative secondary sources to our interpretation of primaries. However, the passage does seeem to have become somewhat garbled, presumably due to editors adding and cutting material without checking the source. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict
I don't suppose you could provide a quote from Rankin, could you? I have a feeling it has been incorrectly paraphrased. And Google Books only previews the first 50 pages or so... the article currently says:
In book XIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC, wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together and "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused"
While Diodorus does say that, and Atheneus repeats that pedarasty was openly practised, Atheneus doesn't seem to repeat the part about the young men offering themselves to strangers. [9][10]Catfish Jim& the soapdish 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The words in quotation marks are what Rankin says. The quotation is accurate, but Athenaeus is not mentioned. In context the passage is: "We learn from Poseidionus that the Celtic women are beautiful but that the men pay little attention to them. He elaborates slightly on the comment we have already noted in Aristotle's Politics about the prevalence of homosexuality among Celtic men. The young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused. He mentions that the men all lie down together on skins (Diod. 5.32) Possibly some sort of bonding ritual within the warrior group is involved which requires abstinence from women at certain times." Paul B (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, would you be happy for me to rewrite that section? I see no reason to change the general POV as it's all sourced, but I'd like to remove some redundant sources that are a hangover from the earlier versions of the article, before more relevant historians were cited. I see no reason to cite: Same-Sex Desire in the English Renaissance: A Sourcebook of Texts, 1470-1650 and Manual of classical erotology for example, and I think the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality could also go. They simply repeat the information quoted by Rankin. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 14:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead. Paul B (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found the relevant reference to Athenaeus. It's on p.55. Rankin refers to Aristotle saying Celts "openly prefer attachments between males", unlike other "beligerent nations". He then adds "Athenaeus (603a) endorses this comment and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity". Paul B (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
And as for Catfish Jim's uncertainty about "the Celts as a whole" or "the Gauls": Diodoros S. is kind enough to mention that both peoples he mentions are called Gauls by the Romans. I doubt there is much use in trying to fathom whether his remark applied to only one group or not and how this group could be kept separate from the other. Trigaranus (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest all this to be eradicated from the article because it all stems from the belief that torcs were female jewelry:
"There are some general indications from Iron Age burial sites in the Champagne and Bourgogne regions of Northeastern France which suggest that women may have had roles in combat during the earlier portions of the La Tène period. However, the evidence is far from conclusive.[72] Examples of individuals buried with both female jewellery and weaponry have been identified, such as the Vix Grave, and there are questions about the sexing of some skeletons that were buried with warrior assemblages. However, it has been suggested that "the weapons may indicate rank instead of masculinity".[73]"
SniffCoke (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you even read the discussion above, or are you still feeling the effects of the nose candy? It does not stem from any such belief. Read the sources and the links. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Begin yourself by reading the talk pages instead of deleting sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.47.27 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleting sources??????? Paul B (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i Read it, and still think what i quoted should be deleted due to the reason i gave. SniffCoke (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it won't be, because it's properly sourced. Your whole argument seems to be that torcs were worn by men. No-one disputes this. You have not adressed the issue that the sources now quoted never mention torcs as evidence of female identity, nor that even with regard to them, the specific archaeological context regarding gendered 'grave goods' needs to be considered, which requires a study of the sources. All the current passage is sourced. If you can find sources that state that there is no inclusion of masculine grave-goods in female graves then that can be used to change the text. Paul B (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Translation : by "properly sourced", Paul B wants to say "sourced according to my personal convenience"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.26.92.57 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You think I have personal investment in the idea that women were buried with weapons? Why would I? Am I here to advocate radical feminism - or possibly something else? If you can show that this information is wrong with appropriate souces, please do. Paul B (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Politically correct is more and more boring. Why should we admit that Celts were feminist ? In Celtic societies, women were women, men were men. That's all. We are really fed up now. Let the historians work, and don't let those leftists write the History.
I'm not homophobic, but one day, they will pretend that the Celtic warriors were homosexual or travestites, I don't know...--Ghosthammer (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic article
A lot of personal POV and childish assertions. Sometimes gibberish (difference between Gauls, Celts and Beaker culture ?...). By reading it, I have the feeling that some users still live in the Arthur's Knights tales... --92.161.12.7 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You may well be right. Please suggest some specific improvements. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ethnic Royal Flush
What of the ethnologic constitution of the celts? Perhaps some mention should be made of the concept of comprehensive hybridization, the attainment of the evolutionary point of no return. 69.254.214.188 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric
Well, seems like "Admiral Eccentric" upstairs is not about to explain what he meant with his comment... But it put me in mind of that picture of Dogs playing poker, only with little Charles Darwins instead of dogs; so I think I have profited from this episode. Let's say we clean this section up in a few days if he still hasn't responded. Trigaranus (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I just imagine a scene with a Celtic princess playing poker with her friends; there's a showdown and she lays out a royal flush. 69.254.214.188 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Genetic Electric
Diachronic map
What kind of a map is that? The legend and the map don´t match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.93.106 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Diachronic is defined as a process that takes place over a period of time. The map and its legend is fine. Catfish Jim& the soapdish 10:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Tracia
The capital of the Celts in the Tracian valey was called Tile. There is a small village called Tulovo today, original name: Tulovo
geographical location: Stara Zagora, Bulgaria, Europe
geographical coordinates: 42° 35' 0" North, 25° 33' 0" East
Celtic artifacts are discovered frequently during archeological studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.78.93 (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Pausanias citation
Greetings. I have a question regarding the reference to Pausanias in the 'Historical Evidence' section.
--
Pausanias in the 2nd century BC says that the Gauls "originally called Celts live on the remotest region of Europe on the coast of an enormous tidal sea".
--
The reference is not cited, but it is evidently based on Pausanias' _Descriptions_of_Greece_, section 1.4.1. I've reviewed a number of versions of this work, both in English translation and in untranslated Greek, and I can find no instance of Pausanias including the bit about "originally called Celts."
Here's a link to the original Greek version of Pausanias' "Description of Greece" on the Perseus project:
As you can see, there's no mention of "originally called Celts" in either the greek original or the translation. Here's an additional English translation by Peter Levi, published by Penguin Classics:
None of these include anything one the order of, "originally called Celts."
What's plain, however, is that a few lines on, Pausanias' text does explicitly say, "It was late before the name “Gauls” came into vogue; for anciently they were called Celts both amongst themselves and by others."
Is there a Greek original out there which includes this rather surprising position of the reference to the Celts? If not, I'd propose that the correct quote be included (and cited) rather than this un-cited misquote.
Thanks for the effort. I suspect this is just a case of someone combining the two quotations without realising it. Paul B (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the translation "It was late before the name “Gauls” came into vogue; for anciently they were called Celts both amongst themselves and by others." semantically the same as the phrase "originally called Celts"?? What am I missing here? Cagwinn (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, here is another translation of the passage "ὀψὲ δέ ποτε αὐτοὺς καλεῖσθαι Γαλάτας ἐξενίκησεν: Κελτοὶ γὰρ κατά τε σφᾶς τὸ ἀρχαῖον καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὠνομάζοντο" (Arthur Richard Shilleto [trans], Pausanias' Description of Greece, Volume 1, G. Bell and sons, 1886, p. 7.):
"And it is only of late that the name Galati has prevailed among them: for originally they were called Celts both by themselves and by all other nations" Cagwinn (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no dispute that he says it. Obviously there are several possible ways of translating the original. The problem was that two passages from Pausanius were merged into a single sentence, probably because someone at some point thought they were cleaning up the article by removing redundant end-quotes. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 178.40.156.212, 19 April 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The text says that there is a Biatec on the "current" Slovak 5-crown coin. There is no "current" Slovak 5-crown coin (or any other crown coins), because since 1 January 2009 Slovakia has had the euro.
The text was probably written before 2009 and should be modified to say "former" instead of "current". -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Diachronic distribution map
The diachronic distribution map at the top of the article has been vandalized at 18:39, 22 April 2011 by User:Madrid747 and currently doesn't match its legend. The user has also taken his/her agenda to File:Ethnographic Iberia 200 BCE.PNG. He/she clearly has an issue with Iberia being associated with the Celts. This vandalism cannot be undone by clicking undo in the file history, it requires an edit by someone familiar with MediaWiki. Onetonycousins (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it's been fixed at Commons.--Cúchullaint/c 12:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that bloke aware that all the stuff he spends so much time on will always be reverted within a day or two? Sort of makes one sad to watch. Trigaranus (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
realm of Breoghegan
The article seems to start at "half-time" with its averence "The earliest archaeological culture commonly accepted as Celtic, or rather Proto-Celtic, was the central European Hallstatt culture (c. 800-450 BC)" It is not respectful to the culture and history.
At least some centuries of European Celtic history would appear to have been bypassed.
Could the writer please expand the article to include reference to the realm of Breoghegan (Brian?), Celtic king of what is effectively Portugal and Spain, who built Braganza, Europe's first walled city outside the classical world (please visit and investigate archaeological ruins).
Reference should expand as far as Breoghegan's son, Galamh, who is recorded to have led the armed forces of Egypt around 900-1000BC. Egyptian records are un-ambiguous. Galamh was the first non-Egyptian to take a Pharaoh's daughter in marriage, Scot'a (her identity disputed), some 2 years before religious heresay claimed Solomon was controversially espoused to the euphemistic "Pharaoh's Daughter" of the Bible. Scot'a is now accepted as memorialized in a sculpture in the Hort del Cura in Eltx, eastern Spain, a living relic that predates the term of the article by almost half a millennium.
It is believed (passed down in lore) that her sons conquered Ireland and Scotland and that she may have been the most likely source of the name "Scotland". This is unverified and needs further clarification. The Gaels have little written history.
This entire earlier period indicates a more warlike and mercenary, less agrarian, period of Celtic history to that reported in the article.
The fact remains that the Celts did not simply "land on Earth" in startled Franconia few hundred years BC.
There are clear linguistic links between the Celtic languages and the Scytho-Sarmatian group which were spoken widely in Western Russia pre-dating the times to which I have referred. Language speaks louder than pottery! (This is my field)
There is quite a demographic migration prior to Hallstadt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Golden (talk • contribs) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously right that they didn't suddenly "land on earth" a few centuries BC out of nowhere. I think what that represents is as far back as modern scholarly consensus can trace them. There are enough migration legends before that point to fill a whole encyclopedia. Why stop at Breogheghan? Why not go all the way to Samothes, or Fenius Farsa, or Hu Gadarn? (Depending on which of the many, many Celt origin legends you use) If you have knowledge of these legends, use it to write and improve the existing articles dedicated to the legendary characters. A brief link from here would certainly be relevant.
Also regarding your statement: "Breoghegan's son, Galamh, who is recorded to have led the armed forces of Egypt around 900-1000BC. Egyptian records are un-ambiguous." What unambiguous Egyptian records??? Can you please point to any kind of link verifying this extraordinary claim? Thanks Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Will, do not mistake legends for history. This article is about the Celts as a historical people. The Celts are utterly and precisely as Egyptian as the Franks are Trojan. And please, no WP:OR: even if you feel that there are close links tying the Scythian languages to Celtic, they are nowhere near as close as those tying them to the other Eastern Iranian languages. There is absolutely no scholarly disagreement on that matter. This article is meant to be based on current academic discourse, and nothing else. Trigaranus (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Trigaranus, have you read Isaacs on this - they may have been in proximity somewhere to the East of Western-Central Europe originally ?Jembana (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hit me, Jembana: I've tried to find the article you meant online but couldn't find it due to too much white noise from religious nuts writing truckloads of nonsense blending the Bible ("Isaac's sons") with shreds of archaeology and linguistics. (There is also some interference from the pre-scientific "Scytho-Celtic" theory, which you probably didn't have in mind.) Which article do you mean? BTW I was not taking umbrage at the possibility that there is a spatial model for PIE that posits a period of proximity btw Celtic and Scythian (which is what you refer to, I assume?) but rather at what seemed to me a veil of respecable linguistics thrown in to give a drone of unreflected ramblings a semblance of academia. I have no problem assuming a Celtic presense on the Atlantic Coast during the late Bronze Age. But please spare me Pharao's bleeding flaming daughter and any pseudo-critical year-countery in a spurious past, and give me Tartessian instead. Trigaranus (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I came across it on page 160 of Isaac's Chapter 7 Origin of the Celtic Languages of Oxbow Books publication Celtic from the West. He says that Greek, Indo-Iranian (but some innovations only in Iranian not Indic) in particular, and also Baltic and Slavic are representative of a very late dialectal configuration innovating many features not shared in common by other IE languages (which had already developed, 'spit-off', in other distinctive directions). He says that from its features Celtic arose out of a section of this very late dialectal configuration and puts this configuration in Eastern Europe in the fourth to the third millenium BC (based on geography and linguistic history). He also sees features shared with Tocharian, Albanian and Italic on other pages so somewhere in that region of contact is what he say in particular the evidence of commonality shared with Iranian but not Indic. The Celtic from the West bit of Cunliffe, Oppenheimer and Koch in other chapters is the postulate that the Celtic branch of this very late IE dialectal differentiation arose somewhere like the Balkans area and spread by sea with the aes dana (men of Bronze Age metalworking skill - early smithies) across the Mediterranean to Iberia and into the Atlantic coast. This is a book with peer-reviewed chapters-papers so don't hit me as a fringe theorist - they present some evidence that some appear wanting to ignore and yes the Tartessian evidence is a perfect example of this.Jembana (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, Greek too.Jembana (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a cool book to read! (And this sounds a bit geekish, I think... but hey, it's WP, so: waheee!) No worries, Jembana. I don't think any WP editors have you down as a fringie. Or as a fringie lover, for that matter. ;-) I thought you meant something along the lines of PIE and late IE differentiation. Perfectly reasonable and fascinating stuff. (Above I was simply worried about Pharao's daughter and a bunch of Gaels stepping out of the proverbial steppe with their buddy Ossian and what have you.) I'll certainly check out the Isaac book. I'm particularly interested in what Oppenheimer has to say, because his linguistic "conclusions" at the end of the Origin of the British struck me as very half-baked indeed. Trigaranus (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Note re Cornish as a modern survival.
Of the two references supplied, one (Encyclopedia Britannica) does not mention Cornish, and the other talks in some depth about the revival of Cornish. Britannica states:
"Linguistically they survive in the modern Celtic speakers of Ireland, Highland Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Brittany."
CatfishJim and the soapdish 09:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, the line inserted here some time ago was pure plagiarism. I'm surprised it was allowed to stand for so long. It also doesn't say anything that isn't already said later in the lead.--Cúchullaint/c 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Minority view tagged as "undue weight"
The atlantic origin theory is well supported and has been proposed as an explanation to the weird results of the Gray and Atkinson phylogenetic work, the alledged celticity of the Tartessian language and other archeological data. I even think this extremly interesting theory deserves its own article so, why have the four or five lines about the matter been tagged as undue weight? Why is it even under "Minority Views" instead of "Atlantic theory"? It seems a bit POVish... I will remove the tag in a couple of days, because it has been there for a year without making any sense, but I would like to know if anyone has an explanation for it. Leirus (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The "undue" tag was placed in this diff [11]CatfishJim and the soapdish 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
So I guess the person placing the tag would have all reference to the atlantic theory removed?. I think it is a valid theory, and one that the average person looking this page for information about "Celts" would find interesting. I am removing the tag. Leirus (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
no, I am happy with a brief discussion of this "atlantic theory".
In the past, we had a lot of fringe pov-pushing in this area, and the tag was sort of counter-punching against that.
As long as this thing is covered by sane editors with a reasonable emotional distance from the topic, I see no problem with a brief discussion under "minority views".
However, the suggestions that "the atlantic origin theory is well supported" and that it has anything whatsoever to do with the Gray and Atkinson paper (which was a playful experiment, not a serious study) are so far from any informed or balanced account, that Leirus very likely isn't very well prepared to cover this topic for us.
The entire point of this article is that the "average person" with no background knowledge will be misled by journalistic nonsense and will be served best by an article that debunks this kind of sensationalism rather than harping on it.
Note how our Neutrino article doesn't focus on, omg, they are going faster than light.
There are journalists, who need to sell their newspapers, and there are (bona fide) Wikipedia volunteers, who do not need to sell anything. Big difference.
Wikipedia wins, because we do not need to inflate and misreport non-notable tangents just to keep people interested.
--dab(𒁳) 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Err... thank you very much for your confidence, but I am actually studying the matter. Not in the journals, exactly. I am currently studying Ancient Spain history, and the matter came up amongst the current theories about Tartessos. you know, the one denying the existence of Tartessos as anything other that the influence of phoenicians over the natives, the one related to the Atlantic theory, etc, etc. Prfessor Cunliffe visited our university and exposed his views. I have been reading the books where hid views are explained and, even if it has its flaws, I considere the theory interesting enough to be covered here. I do not mean well supported enough to be taken as truth, but definetly to be taken into account. Gray and Atkinson paper was extremely experimental and not to be taken as definitive results, but it was not a joke, and its results were intriguing. So please, try to not be that condescending next time. Leirus (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I am glad you are "studying the matter", but that in itself doesn't really go to instil confidence, does it. I am aware of the "Tartessos" red herring. It does deserve some coverage. It is also very easily blown out of proportion.
I am not going to discuss the Gray and Atkinson paper on this talkpage, if you need to bring that up, that's as good as saying, I don't really have a case. I know it was an interesting paper. I also know it has been chewed by journalists until it was impossible to discuss its actual, limited value.
If you want to cover Tartessian, be my guest, but please do it at Tartessian language. --dab(𒁳) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The undue tag also covered "More recently, John Koch[34] and Barry Cunliffe[35] have suggested that Celtic origins lie with the Atlantic Bronze Age, roughly contemporaneous with the Hallstatt culture but positioned considerably to the West, extending along the Atlantic coast of Europe" - the only mention of this - which, without knowing anything much at all about the subject, seemed unreasonable to me. A recent gallery talk I wattended by the head of the British Museum Dept of Europe & Prehistory gave the Atlantic theory more "weight" than we do here. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is that Wikipedia should not give the layman the impression that Koch's views are accepted, or to suggest that they are about to become mainstream. I don't know about archeology, perhaps Koch's ideas are popular there (but then, resisting the idea of post-Neolithic long-range Indo-European migrations – and over-confident interpretation of genetic data and anything that looks science-y, math-y and precise – has been a trendy fashion in archeology for the past decades, to be blunt, so I'm not surprised), but archeologists are in no position to assert anything authoritatively about Celtic languages and the classification of the Tartessian language. Koch's views have not been accepted in the community of Celtic specialists at large nor among linguists, and as pointed out by User:Taranis2010 on Talk:Tartessian language#Tartessian as Celtic, Altantic Theory, Koch's interpretation is problematic and Koch still has a lot to answer for, to put it mildly. The issue is still currently being blown out of proportion on Wikipedia. The fact that the Tartessian-as-Celtic speculation has been spammed all over vaguely related Wikipedia articles does not inspire confidence in the idea. If the idea was as compelling as it is currently being promoted as, there would be no reason for promotion, sensationalism and peacocky listings of scholars, which looks like POV-pushing and fringe-advocating if anything. Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
dab's comparison to the speed-of-light issue is spot-on. We don't advertise "Cosmic speed limit broken! Growing numbers of scientists convinced!" in big letters all over Wikipedia, either. Nor should we report on alleged decipherments as accepted facts prematurely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently there is one sentence buried in a very long and dense article. I know nothing about the linguistics and little about the early archaeology, but I rather get the impression that the overall drift of the article does not represent current mainstream archaeological views, at least in the UK and Ireland, very well. Decoupling linguistics and the archaeology traditionally regarded as "Celtic" seems increasingly accepted. Perhaps things are different in Germany. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather thinking of other articles such as Prehistoric Iberia, History of Spain, History of Portugal or Andalusia, and various further articles, where User:Jembana has sneaked a copypasted paragraph in, which advertises Koch's view including peacock terms such as "highly respected scholars", apparently to ensure that no-one misses this awesome new hypothesis and how it is presumably backed by eminent scholars A, B, C, D and E, while conveniently failing to mention all the scholars who disagree.
As for the decoupling of Celtic linguistics and Celtic archaeology, I'm aware of that, but it makes no sense to me. It just leads to misunderstandings. Why not simply drop the term "Celtic" instead? It has no real meaning outside of linguistics anyway, since, as we are well aware, pots don't talk. Also, Koch uses "Celtic" very much in a linguistic sense, and the whole linguistic Tartessian-as-Celtic hubbub is tied by the Atlantic School to (their view of) Celtic archaeology; in fact, as a glorious confirmation of it. Hell, they're all about the Insular Celts, despite their weak archaeological links to the continental Celts. Therefore, it seems that the "decoupling" is not all that consistent, to put it mildly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Celtic" is a successful brand that archaeologists tend to use on the covers and first couple of pages of their books, & then never refer to again - that has been the case for several decades. Would you be a linguist by any chance? Oh yes, you would. It is a cliche that "Celtic" is a term used in 3 main areas, ethnic/cultural, linguistic and cultural/archaeological, and the fit between them is not great. The ethnic/cultural meaning would seem to be the primary and original one, really, and certainly the hardest to shift. Perhaps the languages need a new name? It is certainly a mistake to think that the Atlantic theory holds or fails depending on Tartessian. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Oh, you are a linguist. Why do you want us archaeologists to give up the name Celtic? It's so cool, we don't want to give it up. Why don't you give it up instead?" Because Edward Lhuyd applied it to languages first, only languages, and not pots or ethnic groups or culture. :-P
Why were names such as Hallstatt culture created again? Remember? Right, so you needn't slap ethnic/linguistic labels on prehistoric cultures: that was the reason. It's true, you don't need the term "Celts" at all, not even as brand; in fact, it is misleading to even use it as that. If you did decouple both completely, we wouldn't have this conflict.
The ethnic/cultural meaning is intimately connected to the linguistic sense. Ethnic/cultural Celtic identity cannot be separated from the Celtic languages, just as ethnic/cultural Native American identity cannot be separated from the indigenous languages of the Americas. It's just that in minority situations, attachment to ethnic identity and culture typically defies and thus outlasts language shift. But the origins of the people(s) and the culture(s) considered Celtic lie in (a) Celtic-speaking environment(s). That's what defines them as Celtic, even if some elements (for example ornamentation styles) may have been taken over from ethnic groups or cultures not originally Celtic-speaking but assimilated. Every non-linguistic sense is derived from the linguistic meaning.
It is certainly a mistake to think the Atlantic theory holds or fails depending on Tartessian.
Ah, so it cannot be proved or disproved? I guess that's why it's called a "theory". Like the Paleolithic Continuity Theory. Serious models such as the Kurgan hypothesis are called hypotheses – speculative, unfalsifiable hogwash is boastingly branded "theory" to immunise it from criticism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem can only be solved if seprate articles are created/ expanded about the la Tene culture, hypotheses about Celtic language, and the historic Celts of Herodotus, et al. The more wise of course understand that the these do not match completely, and it is thus futile to attempt to present all 3 here as part of a grand narrative of the "Celts" Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course articles exist on the Celtic language and on La Tene. There is no point in having an article specifically devoted to Hedodotus' view of Celts. This article is however about the historical Celts. And yes, ccreating what you call "grand narrative" is exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to do, as long as it does not present its account as undisputed fact when real disputes do exist. Paul B (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That was my point, and one I did not expect to draw such hostility. To explain from where I am coming... Spain represents a bit of a problem for the traditional view that links together Hallstat, La Tene and Celts, because while half of the country was "celtic" (as per the Untermann line between celtic "-briga" and iberian "-ill", and the classic descriptions) the La Tene findings are restricted mostly to the northeast (Catalonia and surrounding areas, more or less). To explain this, I have seen in several spanish authors a tendency to accept this division between celtic material culture and celtic languages. Salinas de Frias is a good example of this, and he is one of the lead experts in the spanish late bronze and iron ages. Almagro Gorbea theories, referenced in the article, were also sprung by this incoherence. It is not just about the Tartessian language, either, the inhabitants of ancient Gallaecia were also described as celts, but there are no La Tene or Hallstat materials to speak of in the area. Celtiberians, who spoke a celtic language and whose Botorrita bronzes are, to my knowledge, the oldest long texts we have in a celtic language show also very little Hallstatic influence. That is why I thought it could be interesting to make reference to this atlantic idea in here... Not as the main theory, but as an interesting hypothesis currently being studied. I am not inmersed in any pro Koch campaign (In fact I first heard about this view by Cunliffe himself without reading his book, and came back to it later after founding references by Kristiansen and Salinas) but if you accept that celtic languages may not have first appeared in the Hallstat/La Tene culture, the atlantic view becomes less outrageous. To be honest I still do not have a fully formed opinion about this, other than it deserves to be looked into, but I think that if we are going to have a reference to this at all in the article (as we have now) we should as well have a good explanation. What currently can be read is "Martín Almagro Gorbea[35] proposed the origins of the Celts could be traced back to the 3rd millennium BC, seeking the initial roots in the Bell Beaker culture, thus offering the wide dispersion of the Celts throughout western Europe, as well as the variability of the different Celtic peoples, and the existence of ancestral traditions an ancient perspective. More recently, John Koch[36] and Barry Cunliffe[37] have suggested that Celtic origins lie with the Atlantic Bronze Age, roughly contemporaneous with the Hallstatt culture but positioned considerably to the West, extending along the Atlantic coast of Europe. Stephen Oppenheimer[38] points out that Herodotus seemed to believe the Danube rose near the Pyrenees." That is confusing and not really useful, so I thought it would be better if we added why these authors think that. Or we could, against my better judgement, take it entirely out of the article, but as it is now, it just sticks out as a sore thumb. I think a good article should have the least amount possible of tags, and the rest of the article is really good (again, in my opinion). Just my two cents... Leirus (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"...so I thought it would be better if we added why these authors think that..." OK then I'll make a start, but i would prefer if others such as yourself made a contribution here to flesh out this section. I have added a linking article built on and expanding the ideas of Almagro Gorbea with a very thoughtful and detailed analysis of what the archaeological record is really showing us in the Iberian Peninsula and it does propose a rethinking on this basis of the La Tene incursion model as the sole basis for Celtic cultures and sort of links the ideas of Almagro Gorbea with those of Cunliffe and Koch - needs a bit more of an explanation. Anyway, have a read and modify as you think fit.Jembana (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
What are the specific place names ending in -briga? Aren't they in Spain? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, from the top of my head you have Segobriga, Nertobriga, Centobriga or Conimbriga. Of course they are in Spain, or better, in Iberia, but they are mainly outside the area where we have found significant Hallstat/La Tene influences (The so called Untermann line divides the coastal mediterranean area or iberian area from the rest of the peninsula or indoeuropean/celtic area). That is, in fact, the main problem which has made the decoupling between celtic language and culture more acceptable for spanish authors. Leirus (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As new and un-mainstream as Koch's theories are, the central-western European origin stance (as popular as it has been); has not been proven. And that's the way it is when it comes to languages, you simply cannot ascertain where a language "originates" in such circumstances as Iron Age continental Europe; and the idea as a language originating in a definable geogrpahic entity might itself be absurd (as per Renfrew). In fact, some have even argued that Celtic originate in Pannonia. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You mean the way the idea that Latin/Romance originated in Central Italy or even (gasp!) specifically the city of Rome is absurd? You've got to be kidding. Oh wait, I'm almost completely sure you're not.
An early stage of Celtic may very well have spoken in Pannonia; in fact, that's even highly probable (given that it's geographically in between attested Celtic and wherever Indo-European originated, which everyone except some leftover Nordicists agree was more to the east). It depends on what period of time you are talking about. Languages are highly mobile beasts, especially when you consider timespans of centuries and millennia.
As for the Celtiberians – if their material culture doesn't match the Hallstatt culture, accepted as the classic Celtic or Proto-Celtic material culture, so what? It is certainly a truism that language and material culture don't always match. Such cases are commonplace and even abound in recorded history. That's why Mallory created his Kulturkugel model: relatively small groups can migrate and conquer, form an upper class and exert elite dominance over a foreign population and induce them to shift their language, without causing them to abandon their material culture and even much of their social customs. Just study a couple of those landnahme events and language shift cases in recorded history to see how it works. To linguists, it's absolutely trivial that not all cultures which they suspect to have been Celtic-speaking are alike; that matters absolutely squat, nil, nada, zero, zip, zilch. It's not a mystery, it's a completely unexciting observation. It's everyday reality! Get used to it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Boians.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stratus-Cloud-Uetliberg.jpg){kind=link}
