Talk:Celts/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Question

Would it be incorrect to suggest them to be an ethnicity in the lede like they have here in the article on Germanic peoples. The below is the extract from the lede

"The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic or Gothic in older literature) are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group of Northern European origin, identified by their use of the Indo-European Germanic languages which diversified out of Proto-Germanic during the Pre-Roman Iron Age."

The Celts could definitely be described as an ethnno-linguistic group? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_language Sheodred (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To add we could use a photo of a notable Celtic figure as they do on the Germanic article. Vercingetorix perhaps? Sheodred (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The relationship between the languages and cultures labelled "Celtic" and ethnicity, is extremely controversial and uncertain, and pretty certainly not a close match. Any statement should be extremely tentative, and referenced to up to date top-quality sources, although most of these avoid and definite statements and many by-pass the subject altogether as a hopeless morass. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer the scholarly map we have here to the macho and nationalistic image of a sword-waving warlord, as seen on the Germanic people page. This the "Celts" page not the "Celts are Great" page. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Epigraphic evidence

I do not see reference to the use of the ethnonym celt by the people in their own time. More specifically the use as an endonym. If you check this database for celti and choose a province you will find several epigraphic inscriptions, Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby , it goes beyhond theories, they actually engraved on tombstones,in their owntime their ethnic origin,(of course if they were dead the family did it.It does not seem they cared what people would think or what theories would be created two thousand years after. This is primary source can be used in small doses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.108.1 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

When do these inscriptions date from ? I would not be surprised if they came from circum-Roman time, when such a label was imposed upon the peoples of Gaul by the Romans, and secondarily accepted by them as an oppositional term against the Romans. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Polish?

How can the poles be related to the celts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.85.122.95 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, genes can feasibly spread in subtle ways, faster than you might think. But I'm not really sure why you are asking here. This article doesn't actually mention any relation between Poles and Celts - although it does state in a few places that the ancient Celtic habitat extended as far as modern Poland. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Map caption needs fixored

Not sure why I can't edit this page, but, hey, stranger things have happened. It confused me for a minute; there's no lock icon at the top.

Whatever. Next to the section "Historical Evidence" there is a picture (the map with blue ocean, green land and a large yellow region) with the caption mentioning the "IIIth century BC" or something to that effect ... Because I'm looking at a sans-serif font there, I at first thought "hundred-eleventh century," which seemed awfully early, but it appears to be referring to the third century BC, using Roman numerals and the incorrect ending "th." Perhaps someone can change it to be clear, maybe explicitly using the word "third," but at least change it from "threeth" ;)

209.6.67.174 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The first map in the introduction (Diachronic distribution of Celtic peoples) says that Western Brittany is an area where "Celtic languages remain widely spoken today". Which is wrong : only some 200,000 people talk Breton in Western Brittany, out of approximately 3 million inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.128.238 (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lift edit protection?

The article was edit protected on 14:49, 22 November 2010 to prevent new and unregistered users from editing the page. The rationale was "edit history is mostly IP vandalism plus reverts".

Is there reason to keep that protection in place? Or not, shall I lift it? --RA (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

German word welsch

The German word welsch, which is listed in the first section, never means "Celtic speaker". In its broader sense, the word means any language or parlance one cannot understand. But usually it is used for speakers of Romance languages. (The French-speaking part of Switzerland is often called Welschschweiz.) So, maybe the word meant "Celtic speaker" 2000 years ago when Celtic speakers still lived in what is now Germany, but in modern German welsch can never be understood to mean that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.238.103 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

This page needs serious formatting help,but I can't do it. Anyone who nows how would help this page hugely.Rwenonah (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Celtic Warrior Clothes

The cloths in the Foto from the Celtic Warrior are from English origin, from the Industrial revolution, it was a English saleman who popularize that textil clothes in the XIX century using the industrial products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.179.70 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor article.

This article exemplifies why many people don't trust wkipedia.77Mike77 (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

77Mike77 - the purpose of Talk pages in Wikipedia is to discuss improvements to articles. Your post doesn't really do that. But your thoughts are welcome. Can you please tell us what you think should be changed, and how? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. For starters, the whole first section has no narrative. It's just a string of facts - a data dump. It's unreadable. It needs a total re-write.

The section claiming that Celts were all gay is far-fetched and unsupported.

No insult intended. There are a lot of referenced facts that could support a good article, but it needs a narrative to connect the facts. It doesn't flow. It is not literature at all. Few people will read this right through. The author did some research, but didn't write a good article.77Mike77 (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, & the subject is very complex & doesn't lend itself to an easy narrative. The section on Greek & Roman accounts of Celtic sexuality is heavily referenced, though of course it may amount to little more than their prejudice. Johnbod (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At no point does the article state that Celts were "gay". It says that same-sex practices were considered quite normal, which is true of many other ancient societies including Athens, Sparta and Rome (if Suetonius is to be believed). It is well referenced. As for "narrative", if we had a smooth narrative, that would make the article less reliable, not more, as we would be glossing over issues that did not fit into a simple story. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read an actual encyclopedia article? You seem to think that it is impossible to convey facts in a logical, organized way that doesn't resemble a list of disconnected details. The number of poorly written articles in wikipedia is apparently exceeded by the number of people defending them in a knee-jerk way. I've found better sources and won't need to revisit this heap of garble you are defending. 77Mike77 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what? Witless mouthing off with no intelligent content whatever just makes you seem like an idiot. You have made no constructive suggestions whatever, so garble away. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Identity Politics

It seems to me that this article is missing something important - a section on Identity Politics. Without some discussion of this, the article is very confusing. This is not the fault of the contributors to the article but a reflection of the source material itself which contains a number of differing theories (ie the 'Out of Halstatt' theory) some of which have been discarded along the way but still have some influence.

A discussion of what the Classical writers such as Herodotus and Julius Caesar ment by Keltoi or Celtae as opposed to what people now regard as Celts might be useful. The point about identity politics is that the people who regard themselves as Celts today (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) are almost certainly not descended from the Keltoi as decribed by Herodotus (these Keltoi probably lived in Spain) whereas the people who are (probably)descended from them do not identify themselves as Celts and, of course, the French prefer to think themselves as descended from Gauls rather than Celts. The strong effect of nationalism in the writings about Celts makes the whole subject a 'live' debate rather than a dry academic one, which adds to the confusion of the whole subject.89.206.230.105 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. Can you suggest any sources? Can you make a first stab at writing the section? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does go into these issues. One of the relatively few uncontroversial aspects of it is that the Gauls were Celts, which is not an issue for the French, so don't let's try to confuse the issue further! The whole term is an unfortunate anachronism, but unfortunately we are stuck with it, and there is no way it won't be confusing. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just a silly point. People have a right to call themselves whatever they want and identities are fluid, changing often over the centuries. "Celtic" is a perfectly useful classification for the language family in question (and, by extension, the wider culture of the speakers of Celtic languages) so there is no problem with modern speakers of Celtic languages identifying themselves as "Celts". I suppose you also have a problem with various Eastern European people identifying as Slavs, including people who anciently spoke other languages and were only Slavicized in the middle ages? Or Norwegians identifying as Germanic (most Germanic peoples didn't even calls themselves "Germans" in antiquity!)? How about a native of Delhi calling himself an "Indian" (not a native term, but ultimately a Persian term for people from this region)?! Cagwinn (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a point invariably made by any academic writing on the subject. If "Celtic" were just a linguistic term, there would not be such an issue, but it has come down to us as also an ethnic and cultural term, which causes the problems. Your "and, by extension, the wider culture of the speakers of Celtic languages" begs any number of questions! That "People have a right to call themselves whatever they want and identities are fluid, changing often over the centuries" is true, but this is exactly what renders the term all but meaningless in a broad context. Clearly most people who today identify as Celts don't speak any Celtic languages at all. Nevertheless we have to live with it. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So what? They identify with what they perceive to be a Celtic culture and heritage - who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that this is somehow wrong?? This is incredibly obnoxious and presumptuous. Cagwinn (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "what they perceive to be a Celtic culture and heritage" may very well be wrongly described as such. And Johnbod, like anyone else, has every right to to say that something is wrong if he believes it is. However, besides that, academics have for a long time been exploring the construction of Celtic identities. It's an unusual case because modern self-identified Celts are so very far removed for "their" ancestors and because it is not a national or even linguistic identity, but a set of cultural markers that have been "chosen" for real and imagined pasts. It's one reason why the concept of modern Celts is so fascinating. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, calm down, and try to follow the logic! They are not particularly wrong, because they use the term in an accepted way. But the multiplicity of accepted meanings for the term makes it what I said above, "an unfortunate anachronism" and "all but meaningless in a broad context" (strictly linguistic uses excepted). Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours is an obnoxious position - go deconstruct some other ethnicity's identity and see how well that is received by those who identify with it!Cagwinn (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do get a grip! I'm not trying to deconstruct anyone's ethnicity - if they want that they only have to get a DNA analysis. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have good friends who are not discernibly different in appearance or culture from me - an American of NW European descent, raised nominally Protestant, but now atheist - yet they identify as being Jewish. They were born and raised in America speaking English, are multiple generations removed from being immigrants, have forgotten what little Hebrew they were taught in Hebrew school as kids, haven't been to a synagogue in years - and even then only for major family events (in fact, they are pretty much agnostics, if not outright atheists), they have never been to Israel (nor do they have no plans to go). They even celebrate Christmas and their only apparent ties to Jewish-American culture are an appreciation for intellectualism and self-deprecating humor, a love of bagels and Chinese food delivery, occasional neurotic behavior, and gathering with family for dinner on the high holidays. Yet, here they are, identifying as Jewish Americans. Are you going to tell them that, since they don't closelty resemble their ancient Judaean ancestors, they should abandon this identity - that it's somehow incorrect or wrong? Good luck with that, buddy! Cagwinn (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue to resist your attempts to put words into my mouth. The term "Jew" has it's issues, but they are nothing as compared to those around "Celt". I'm actually completely uninterested in "modern Celts", despite, according to you, being one. They merely add another layer of confusion to the term, beyond those set up by much earlier Celts. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's completely different. Judaism is a real continuous ethnic/religious identity. Celticism is not. It is a concept derived from the genetic commonality of languages which diverged thousands of years ago. Paul B (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

B.S. - they're not different at all! You folks are just trying to justify your awful prejudices and bigotry. Cagwinn (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What bigotry? Do youtr really believe that anyone anywhere is prejudiced against "Celts". It's a nonsensical concept. And I see you have no argument. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? In my life I most certainly HAVE seen anti-Celtic bigotry, in many forms. The fact that you cannot even recognize its existence tells me all I need to know about you. Cagwinn (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti Irish, say, or anti Scottish prejudice is not "anti-Celtic". In other for these to be "anti-Celtic" prejudice the anti-Celt would have to view, say, Bretons with the same distain for the same reasons. That's a complete fiction. There is no such prejudice. Of course you can find prejudice against Bretons too, but in a different context and for different reasons. You can find prejuduice against any group that exists if you look for it, but that does not justify arbirarily combining various separate peoples and saying they are all victims of "anti-Celticism". That's like saying separate prejudices against Australians, Germans and Swedes is "anti-Germanic" prejudice because they all speak Germanic languages. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You really don't know what you are talking about and are just embarrassing yourself at this point. Cagwinn (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again I see you have no argument. As it happens I'm from Liverpool. My mother is Welsh and I live half the year in Brittany, so I think I have rather more than abstract knowledge! Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to tell me that there is no history of anti-Celtic bigotry in Europe, especially in the UK (where people of primarily English descent have imagined themselves [due to their perceived Germanic heritage] not only as different from, but superior to Modern Celtic people - as the term is commonly understood today) and in France, where the government has very discriminatory policies towards the Breton language and culture, you are either hopelessly ignorant of modern history, or a liar. Which is it? Cagwinn (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, you just don't hear what's being said do you? Racial Anglo-Saxonism is a phenomenon of the 19th - early 20th century. Are there English nationalists still? Yes, of course, but that derives from the fact that Wales, Scotland and Ireland have (or had) distinct national and constitutional positions within UK nationhood. It would make no difference if Gaelic and Brythonic were completely unrelated languages and the concept of "Celts" as such had never existed. What I have been saying all along is that there is no prejudice against "Celts" as a unified group. In both Britain and France (especially France) national unity was promoted, which included linguistic and religious unity (the main problem with Ireland was that it was Catholic, not Celtic). In France all non-standard French languages were deprecated. The fact that Breton was Celtic did not mean that it was treated in a specifically different way (a lot of people in Brittany spoke the non-Celtic Gallo language). In other words we have a complex of overlapping factors. They overlap in differing ways with the multiple meanings of Celtic. What we don't have is some sort of single anti-Celticism, especially as the French promoted "our ancestors the Gauls" as part of French nationalism. Who do you think it was it who stuck up those statues of Vercingetorix and wrote melodramas about Eponine and Sabinus? Paul B (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deconstructing (and constructing) ethnicity happens all the time. We should all be prepared to acknowledge the truth about our multiple and fluid models of identity. It might lead to much less of a rigid "us versus them" mentality. All I can say is that I know of no discernable commonality between Bretons and Glaswegians greater than that which found among all Europeans. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The discernible commonality between Bretons and Glaswegians lies precisely in their historical Celtic heritage. But why don't we get some verifiable sources instead of each pontificating our opinions about the modern validity of cultural heritages that some parties may want to be dismissive of. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a totally circular argument. What "Celtic heritage"? Language, religion, music, genes? Tell me how they differ from the "English" or the "French" in ways that are held in common. As for soueces, there is a huge amount on this topic. The only question is whether it should be discussed in this article. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of special litmus test a source has to comply with to be used in this article? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called WP:RS. Perhaps you've heard of it. The topic I was referring to is the identity politics of modern Celticity, which, you may recall, is the subject of this thread. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Paul, that's not a "special" litmus test, that is the regular standard. I'm asking if you have a special litmus test for "reliability" - for example, all sources that espouse such-and-such a POV pass the litmus test and are therefore "reliable", whereas other sources discussing a different school of thought fail your litmus test and are thus adjudged by you as "unreiable". You know, that old chestnut... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Empty taunting is not helpful in any way. You know perfectly well what's acceptable. As Doug has just pointed out the literature is widespread. There are regular conferences, many books, journal articles and essay collections. What's the problem? Paul B (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't "know perfectly well what's acceptable" because I'm not a mind reader. There have been many cases where I would have thought that a source was perfectly reliable for establishing that a POV exists. But the self-appointed arbiters don't want that POV mentioned on wikipedia at all, so the sources demonstrating that the POV exists thus become "unreliable", and the editor who introduced them is accused of "original research" as if he made it all up himself. I see it all the time, even though it is quite honestly sickening to see wp regularly choose whose side it's going to fight on while maintaining a pretense of "neutrality". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Til, this is empty ranting. Do you something to say about what should be included in this article? If you don't, take your grievances elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

((od))There is an interesting literature on Modern Celts which was missing from the article - my suggestions there were either rebuffed or ignored. Malcolm Chapman's The Celts: The Construction of a Myth, Chris Snyder, Simon James' The Atlantic Celts. I've just restored it, it isn't perfect but it should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Chapman's book is still controversial . I think we should just explain the controversy and avoid taking sides in it. I found a overview in the introduction to Amy Hale and Philip Payton, eds., New Directions in Celtic Studies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Very sensible. Of course we should. That is what the Neutral Point Of View policy, one of Wikipedia's core policies, tells us to do. Doing anything else should lead to reversion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should "explain the controversy", but I'm not sure what controvery you think should be explained. It's undisputed that many aspects of modern "Celtic" identity are in-effect inventions. Whether very idea of Celts can be described as a "myth" is another matter. it really depends what aspect of the story you are speaking of. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?? ALL identities - from the first groups of Homo Sapiens to today - are inventions!!! Every single one! Cagwinn (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you adopt that position you just get into the land of pure meaninglessness, since there is no basis to distinguish useful and nonsensical identites. I can say that Vietnamese, Angolans and Argentinians are all "Gondolian people", and anyone who expresses negative views about any of them is guilty of anti-Gondolianism. You merely undermine your own claims by resorting to the nothing-is-real argument, since you are making truth-claims about Celtic identity. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You have serious issues. Seek help. Cagwinn (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's the best you can do, I suggest you give up now. The "all identities is fiction" argument is just the classic post-modern fallacy: like saying "cancer" is a medical-discursive construct so it is no more real than any imaginary disease I can make up. Paul B (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the most idiotic arguments I have come across on Wikipedia! Identities - and this should be blindingly obvious - are human constructs, thus they are invented at some point in history by humans. They are not handed down to us by some supreme power at the dawn of time; people decide collectively that they are part of a group, which someone has coined a name for. A hundred years, maybe a thousand, maybe five thousand, their descendants decide they are part of some new grew with a new name. What is so hard to grasp here? Cagwinn (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You really are not able to get it are you? Your remarks don't even address my point, because you are apparently incapable of understanding it. Of course identities are constructed. The problem is that you are mixing up "constructed" with "fictional" in ways that fail to engage with the actual issue. You make specific truth-claims about aspects of Celtic identity. When claims are challenged you fall back on the "identity is constructed" argument. The problem is the oscillation between the two - and the anger when challenged. If you really believed that Celtic identity was just a construct you wouldn't get angry with people who appear to agree that that's the case, and you certainly would not be arguing that there is some sort of "bigotry" against Celts as a whole. The term Celtic has multiple different usages (or types of "existence") discursively. They overlap and diverge in complex ways and apply in different contexts. To take one example. The idea that a particular group of languages have common ancestry is a truth claim. But its also a construct (it was "invented" by linguists and is supported or challenged within academic discourse). It is simultaneously a construct and an assertion of truth. The claim that bagpipes are "Celtic" may be a similar type of truth claim, or may be simply an assertion that it has become a sign of Celticity. We have to make meaningful distinctions between types of claim. But the idea that there is a unitary "Celtic identity" that has somehow been decided on by some group is quite different. Frankly, in my experience most people in so-called Celtic countries have no idea what the word means. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I just read at Breton language that there are radio stations in Breton, and nearly 15,000 students learning in bilingual Breton schools. I'd have thought schools anywhere would teach students what Celtic means. But you have lived there so maybe you can say from experience if that is not the real deal. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obvoiously some people know a lot and some people know next to nothing, and some people don't care about it. Lots of people learn Breton, or at least can speak some phrases, but I don't think that's the same as knowledge of what is "Celtic" and what is not. Bretons certainly know that their "old" language is the same as "old" British (after all the same word, Bretagne, is used for both Britain and Brittany in French), but in the history of Breton nationalism that's complicated by wanting to be identified as separate from "Gauls", as Gallic identity was used to promote French nationalism. At one level Bretonism involves identifying as having a common "British" ancestry, to distinguish themselves from equation with Gallic French identity (which both is-and-isn't "Celtic"). But some local peoople I know are very fuzzy about how 'British' is related to 'English' (they often jumble up the two) and have no clear conception of what Welsh means, certainly not of P Celtic and Q Celtic. Of course, others are very knowledgeable. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles discussing the effect of identity politics on this subject available on the web. Such as:

http://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/57/21/41/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1191%252F1474474005eu316oa.pdf http://www.laits.utexas.edu/ironagecelts/ethnic.php http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/alternative.htm http://www.academia.edu/2073922/Celts_Collective_Identity_and_Archaeological_Responsibility_Asturias_Northern_Spain_as_case_study http://www2.lingue.unibo.it/studi%20celtici/Articolo_12_(White).pdf https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/19179/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf?sequence=1 89.206.230.105 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

P-Celts and Q-Celts

Re: "Do you something to say about what should be included in this article? If you don't, take your grievances elsewhere." Yes. You would think an article like this would have a detailed section explaining the relationship between P-Celts and Q-Celts. These two divisions btw correspond to completely different traditional ethnogeneses. But I had to look hard to find even the briefest mention of P-Celts and Q-Celts, naturally along with the dogmatic, but completely uncited observation that these terms are supposedly "discredited". I think this assertion may be what we call "pushing" it just a wee bit. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's covered in Celtic languages.Itsmejudith (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to to do with the issue that was being discussed. All you have done is go through the article to find something to complain about. No one is saying the article is perfect, but the discussion was about whether we should have a section on modern "Celtic" identity politics. At them moment that's covered in a spin-off article called Celts (modern). Paul B (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Apparently only Paul B has the standing to dismiss this complaint as out of order, for the reason he just gave. Folks, I think we are getting close to being able to identify who the Chairman of the Board of this article is! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you can be just slightly less childish? You may not have noticed that I was not the person who "dismissed" your complaint. I merely pointed out that what you said has no relevance to the discussion above from which you quote. If you stop trying to lash out you might get some useful discussion. There is a genuine question about how much this article should discuss the languages and the modern identity (including "Celtic" art and music), or whether it should concentrate on the ancient Celtic peoples. I agree that the term "discredited" is probably too strong for the Ps and Qs. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not, contrary to what you have assured us, search the article specifically looking for problems. In the above section, which concerns a different matter altogether, you compared Glaswegians and Bretons. As I got to thinking about this, it occured to me that Glaswegians are associated with Q Celts and Bretons with P Celts, and that these two groups have wholly different traditional ethnogeneses. So I thought to myself, "Our article is so pathetic I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't even mention Q Celts and P Celts." So I looked, and found that yes, it mentions them in the briefest possible terms, but with the wild, premature declaration that this is "discredited" and the case is now closed, nothing to see, please move along. So I opened up a NEW topic for discussion. Believe me, if I wanted to go over this article looking for problems, it wouldn't be hard to find a bushelful, because the whole article is similarly laughable as editor after editor keeps pointing out. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has certainly got rather gummed up and is no longer very readable. That's true. It suffers from too many people trying to squeeze in too many points. As for "laughable", that's just ridiculous. There is no reason to go into the P/Q distinction in detail, since this is not an article about Insular Celts or Celtic languages. It's an overview article. You forget that there are many many sub-articles that discuss specific issues in detail. Also my point about Bretons and Glaswegians was in the context of modern identity. Modern Glaswegians are not Q-Celts in any meaningful sense. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently 89 kbytes long, without exactly going into much depth on any issues, and carries a hat-note saying "This article is about the ancient and medieval peoples of Europe. For Celts of the present day, see Modern Celts", though they also get some coverage at the end of the lead. That seems about right to me. Expansion should concentrate on things like P & Qs rather than a brief section on modern Celts & their identities or lack of them. Anyone who fancies trying to boil down the ancient & medieval Celts into a better concise lead is of course welcome to have a go. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't typically talk about "P-celts" and "Q-celts" as modern cultural identities. P/Q celtic is a kind of fuzzy linguistic concept, one that we're moving away from (as cosy as it was, it's clear that the concept over-simplifies matters somewhat). We can look to the extremes of distribution of the Goidelic languages and Brythonic languages and see that sure, the west of Ireland has certain cultural traditions that are different from those in mid-Wales or Cornwall, but what about your example of Glaswegians? Strathclyde was originally a "P-celtic" area. Then it was a "Q-Celtic" area. Then I guess it was "Scots" area. Before it was "P-Celtic", it would have been a "Pre-Indo-European" area. Are Glaswegians "Scots"? Of course. Are they "Celts"? Which sort are they?

Go further east, to Tayside. Cultural traditions there are even more related to those of "P-Celtic" areas. Local traditions about Pictish stones relate to the Arthurian legends, yet the P-Celtic language was replaced (slowly) with a Q-Celtic language more than a thousand years ago, much in the same way as happened in Strathclyde. Are they "P-celts" or "Q-celts"? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You call it "moving away from", I call it pushing. Per Starfleet's Prime Directive, it's not out job to move anyone away from anything, but to describe things as they currently are in all honesty. And currently in all honesty, I don't think the P/Q school of thought has all suddenly packed up, gone home and given up the theory in favor of the insular one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For the nth time, we don't want to talk about "modern cultural identities" at all here, beyond the little we have - please take that off to modern Celts! But the current state of the Ps & Qs debate is relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A good place to start would be Schmidt, Karl Horst (1993), Ball, Martin (ed.), "Insular Celtic:P and Q Celtic", The Celtic Languages, Routledge. Essentially, P/Q used to be applied generally to the Celtic languages, but is seen as less significant now and the mutation between Q and P may have happened independently on a number of occasions and is not limited to the celtic languages. It's still used to classify insular Celtic languages, but recent work on early Scottish Gaelic has shown that the dividing lines between P and Q can still be extremely fuzzy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's hardly a very useful way to classify insular Celtic language, when it simply does the job that Brythonic-Goidelic does, but less well. garik (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Catfish Jim, that article about P and Q Celtic by Schmidt that you linked is excellent and I found it much more informative than our wikipedia article. But your own summary of what it says is inaccurate; viz. that it is seen as "less significant now". I saw no such thing in that article but on the contrary on p. 75 after elaborating both rival positions ("Insular", vs. P/Q aka Brythonic/Goidelic) he clearly sums up saying that better evidence is being adduced by his fellow scholars for a Brythonic-Goidelic split and against an insular/continental one, precisely the opposite of what the wp article pushes. Note also that these scholars include Celtiberian with Goidelic, but Gaulish with Brythonic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just Schmidt's opinion, and that of his students. The rest of the Celtological world has indeed moved away: Other specialists on Celtic, such as Schrijver and Schumacher, do not find the evidence in favour of the P/Q split convincing, and support a unitary Insular Celtic branch (but not a Continental Celtic branch), based on the development of the verb system. See my comments at Talk:Celtic languages#P/Q Celtic vs. Insular/Continental Celtic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistancies in article

The article starts with the phrase 'Kelts were an ethno-linguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture'

However, as the article makes clear, the Halstatt and La Tène cultures were distinct from their surrounding cultures some of which were just as 'Celtic' according to this article. Also no one knows what language was spoken in the areas described as 'core Halstatt'.

Maybe it would be better to use the definition that: 'The Celts' were a variety of people described by Ancient Greek and Roman writers as living in Western Europe, mostly in the area that comprises today's Spain and France.193.105.48.20 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also according to Julius Caesar: 'All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.' So obviously, Caesar thought that the Celts only lived in part of Gaul and they were different to the Belgae. However according to this article the Belgae are also Celts.77.98.78.8 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's very far from being that simple, as you'll find if you read Belgae. Something wrong with that quote too. I see Doug Weller has removed the para on just pre-Roman movements of population, which is a tricky subject, even for this page, but should be covered somehow. Your definition would certainly not be an improvement, as it only reflects ancient usage (maybe). AFAIK it is not controversial that the 'core Halstatt' area mostly used Celtic languages, but so did peoples in other areas, and not all peoples who took up aspects of Halstatt and La Tène culture were Celtic-speaking. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We only know that some Ancient peoples were known as Keltoi/Galates because literate outsiders, Greeks and Romans, said so. Much later, scholars discovered that the people, or some of the people, so described spoke related languages (Gauls, Galates, Britons etc.)- and that people living in more modern times (Welsh, Irish etc.) also spoke languages related to the ones used by the "Classically described Celts". At much the same time archaeology found certain physical cultures (defined by pottery - metalwork - decorative arts etc.) which, due almost entirely to their geographic proximity to those areas described as inhabited by Celts by the classical writers, were classified as "Celtic cultures". On to all of this was grafted ethnology and nationalism - as it was thought that language, genetics and material culture were welded to each other - patent nonsense of course! We now know that physical culture, and language are mutable and have no fixed realtionship to each other or to the genetics of the people associated with them. There were undoubtedly Ancient people who had elements of La Tene culture who did not speak a Celtic language - Ligurians and some Germanic groups for example. Also there were people who probably or definitely spoke Celtic dialects, such as many peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, who did not adopt the La Tene culture. Perhaps there should be a section early in the article which explores the variety of definitions of "celticity". Urselius (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

All the early sections at least touch on these issues, and that summary can be found or deduced by careful readers, but a clearer statement would be good. Perhaps you could work it in? Related articles like Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles, Insular Celts, Gauls & so on are even worse. See the section above for a robust defence of the moonshine position. This article gets about 1.2 million views a year, btw, so it would be nice if we could get it right. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no reference to the Histories of Herodotus, since they are used to justify the belief that the people of the Halstatt culture were Ancient Celts

In the translation by George Rawlinson (1812-1902) they state:

'For the Nile certainly flows out of Libya, dividing it down the middle, and as I conceive, judging the unknown from the known, rises at the same distance from its mouth as the Ister. This latter river has its source in the country of the Celts near the city Pyrene, and runs through the middle of Europe, dividing it into two portions. The Celts live beyond the pillars of Hercules, and border on the Cynesians, who dwell at the extreme west of Europe. Thus the Ister flows through the whole of Europe before it finally empties itself into the Euxine at Istria, one of the colonies of the Milesians.'

Here the Ister is the Danube, the Pillars of Hercules are the straits of Gilbraltar, the Cynesians an ancient tribe that lived in what is now Spain. Pyrene is not known but could be a Greek trading port near the Pyrenees. The most reasonable interpretation of this is that Herodotus believed the Celts lived in what is now Spain or France. 193.105.48.20 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Update Celtic Culture

Good day all, Please forgive me but I like to list some facts. Celtic dna does not exist because it is a Culture from the Iron age. And there where many cultures before the Celtic culture. History gets rewritten all the time and continues to be updated. So read more and learn about the Celtic culture not Celtic peoples. One different theory from the British Isles DNA project shows a majority of Ireland, Scotland, England peoples came from Iberian peninsula. I do not know if this correct. (unsigned)

"History gets rewritten all the time and continues to be updated." Gee, really? That might explain why Celtic studies is often like sitting through a competing psychobabble contest, then. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

More on the Iberian Hypothesis of Celtic peoples, using genetics.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be bought.

Still here are some parts of the text:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

Here is part of the text:

From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41.

It seems that genetic evidence supporting the Iberian hypothesis, paired with archaelogy, is ever-growing. A lot has been already published concerning the Iberian-Basque-British Isles connection. Now this seems to continue in other European areas like Germnay.

Pipon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that genetic and archaeological data cannot be directly tied to languages, these data cannot support nor refute any particular hypothesis regarding Celtic origins. In fact, if we take the genetic and archaeologate data seriously, it would rather militate against an identification of the "Beaker folk" as Indo-European (in short: highly improbable), much less Celtic speakers (implausible to the extreme). The (linguistic) ancestors of the Basque would be a much better fit. Please refer to my comments at Talk:Beaker culture#Latest update.. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Language, genetics and physical culture have in the past been treated as though they are welded together. More recent scholarship has shown that this is not the case. There is evidence that some Germanic-speakers adopted La Tene physical culture and that Celtic-speaking peoples from the Iberian peninsula did not. There was a great cartoon in an archaeology magazine that illustrated this perfectly, a group of Neolithic farmers are running away from large ceramic pots with arms and legs, wielding swords - "Run away, the Beaker People are coming!" Urselius (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That was exactly my own point at the beginning! However, in this particular case, the genetic data seem to indicate at least some migration accompanying the spread of the Beaker tradition from Iberia to Central Europe – effectively ruling out a connection to the spread of Indo-European languages, because it is extremely unlikely that Indo-European languages were spoken in Early Bronze Age Iberia (where the Beaker tradition originated, in the Tagus basin), let alone anything identifiable specifically as Celtic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "extremely unlikely" for Indo-European languages to have been spoken in Early Bronze Age Iberia? I don't find it unlikely at all.Cagwinn (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Actually the Koch model proposes that indoeuropean languages reached South Spain through maritime contact earlier than currently assumed. This hypothesis is being studied with moderate enthusiasm in Spain because it helps to explain why areas where the La Tène findings are scarce or non existent show however celtic features (gods, costumes and names of places mostly) and were described as such by the Romans. A good example is the castrexa culture in the Northwest area, which being strict and going by the current theories could not be classified as celtic (but appears as such in this very page). I guess that is why most of the cites in that section come from spanish universities. The fact that Tartessian language seems to have had at least some indoeuropean influence also seems to favour this hypothesis (Note that I am not following the "Tartessian as celtic" idea, but I think some kind of influence is very likely at this point). I am happy to see someone managed to include an explanation of this idea, although the wording is a bit confusing. For the record, this hypothesis does not exclude the La Téne-celtic languages connection, it just adds a previous step where a protoceltic language would have emerged as a commercial language along the atlantic coasts of Europe, and then would have been adopted by the La Téne culture, where it would have further evolved.

But anyway, I did not come to express my opinion, but to propose this article as relevant for the page. The article is form the Daily Mail and thus is a bit on the sensationalist side, but I will try to look for the original research it reports when I have the time to do so. The surprising part is the one where Alan Cooper from the University of Adelaide Australian Center for Ancient DNA speaks matter-of-factly about the possible relationship between the Bell Beaker culture and the celtic languages expansion. I never edit english articles because (as you will have noticed by now) I am not a native english, but I leave this here just in case someone wants to add it. If I manage to find the original article by the australians I will also leave a link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.50.43 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Och, I now realize it is the same studio, Brotherton actually works with Cooper. Sorry about that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.50.43 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"the oldest recorded rhyming poetry in the world is of Irish origin" (society section)

This claim is dubious and I'm not sure that even the single source listed is quite arguing that. I am going to change it to less definitive terminology. The article on rhyme certainly doesn't back up the claim. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed it - it's absolutely bogus.Cagwinn (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Main point of this article is wrong

This article seems to equate La Tene culture with Celts. The yellow core area in the illustration to the right corresponds roughly to southern Germany and Switzerland, which never was a Celtic core area. The core Celtic homeland was Viscaya, the Pyrenees, southern France, and this area is mostly left blank in the illustration.

This flaw in the article is so gross that it invalidates the entire article. This article cannot be taken seriously until this has been set right. In this respect, this article follows an age-old misunderstanding about the localization of the Celtic homeland which stems from an old Greek saying that the Celts lived where the Danube ended, but it was a common Ancient Greek belief that the Danube ended in the Pyrenees. This has been known for several years among scholars and this article does not reflect recent scholarship.--114.82.12.111 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cæsar in _De Bello Gallico_ keeps the Gauls and the Celts clearly apart. He states these are two different people. This article confuses Gauls and Celts. I have no words!--114.82.12.111 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about - Caesar explicitly states that "Gauls" (Galli) and "Celts" (Celtae) are one and the same. Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Book I, chapter 1: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur." ("All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, the third those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls"). Cagwinn (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See Prof. Mallory's explanation in video link given below. --114.82.12.111 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - I give you the Non Sequitur Award of the Day for that. Cagwinn (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We tend to rely (per policy, and for good reason) on secondary source interpretations of primary sources here. I'm sure the regular editors of this article would welcome any mainstream scholarly references (or links to the same) that validate your criticisms. Without such references, there's no reason to change the current article text. Haploidavey (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this one: J.P. Mallory: _The Origins of the Irish_, Thames & Hudson, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.82.12.111 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the topic expounded by Mallory himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI --114.82.12.111 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting youtube-relayed talk at Penn by Mallory about cultures in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Never once is the word "Celtic" mentioned. Why on earth do you think this is relevant? Paul B (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a collection of papers on related issues, by Martin W. Lewis and Asya Pereltsvaig: http://geocurrents.info/category/indo-european-origins

David W. Anthony: _The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World_, Princeton University Press, 2010.

Here is the topic expounded by Anthony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapUGZ0ObjA

This is a lecture in "Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes". It's about the origins of PIE. There is no discussion of Celts. I have no idea why you think these youtube links are relevant to this page. And the book has almost as little relevance. It says nothing about the "core area" of Celtic culture. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So far we have Mallory, Anthony, Lewis and Pereltsvaig. Say when.--50.7.188.250 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So far we have nothing whatever about Celts in any of the links you have provided. Please say when you are going to show is something relevant to this article. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I see now that a great many other commentators in the sections above have reacted to the same inconsistencies in this article that I also react to. Good! How many people need to point out these flaws before the contents is rectified? --114.82.12.111 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why so passive? You can't reasonably expect other editors to read (or wade) through sources you provide, seeking out specifics that support positions you have advanced on this talk-page. For a start, you should provide the page numbers on which the relevant material is to be found - and that's just so that readers and editors can check your sources, not so they can do the work of writing for you. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, including you. I'm posting a welcome message at your talk-page, giving links to relevant policies. If you've sources, please use them... and be prepared for a certain amount of discussion. Haploidavey (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, I own a hardback copy of Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language but haven't yet read it (other than a cursory skim). Perhaps you could tell me which pages deal with the relevant material. Haploidavey (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. The book has nothing of relevance to say. The IP is confusing a genuine debate about Greek understanding of the principal location of "Celts" with a host of other issues: the relation of the terms Celt and Gaul; the origin of PIE; the genetic history of populations, etc etc. Whether or not any clear issue regarding content can emerge from this mess remains to be seen. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. Eg Anthony's book treats the celts peripherally. SOunds like a rant rather than identification of specific objections. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Math error

"The finding of the prehistoric cemetery of Hallstat in 1846 by Johan Ramsauer and almost ten years later the finding of the archaeological site of La Tène by Hansli Kopp in 1857..." -- 1857 is "almost ten" years after 1846? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.136.199 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Circular argument?

I can't help thinking that the whole article is based on a series of circular arguments : ie 'The Celts' were a people who spoke a Celtic language and had a Celtic culture. Celtic language and culture originated with 'The Celts', who are defined by their Celtic culture and language. And so on. Or put another way: 'Celts' made Celtic style swords and helmets. Where you find Celtic style swords you have evidence of 'Celts' who made Celtic style swords and helmets. By careful use of the confusing early texts and taking a wide as possible view of what artifacts are 'celtic', you end up with 'Celts' all over Europe.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, first you have the Greeks calling a people "Keltoi" and the Romans calling them "Galli," and some other names - the Greeks and Romans recorded these people living in certain areas and doing various things - like sacking Rome and Delphi. OK so far? Then you get some linguists in the 18th and 19th centuries who realise that Breton and Irish etc. are all similar and belong to a linguistic group; linguists then realise that these modern people speak languages related to various scraps of written stuff (inscriptions, names etc.) that the Ancients recorded about the people they called "Celts," therefore the modern Irish, Welsh Manx etc were then dubbed "Celts." A little bit later people started digging stuff up, near lakes and suchlike, and said "This stuff comes from areas the Greeks and Romans said the "Celts" came from, therefore this stuff is "Celtic!" Whoopeeee!" There you go. Urselius (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but this pretty much reflects the broad way the concept is used in academic studies, despite complaints. The article in fact says little about "Celtic culture", a difficult concept in the Iron Age as we know so little about it, but talks about artefact style, which is not the same thing. The whole term is unfortunate, but we are stuck with it. Then again, the "circularity" of an ancient cultural package is inevitable. The Anglo-Saxons spoke Old English and made Anglo-Saxon artefacts, and where you find these you have evidence of of A-S who made A-S style objects - yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would say that the concept of Anglo-Saxon is very different from that of 'Ancient Celt'. The former is much more well defined concept in terms of time and place. There are also contemporary texts written by Anglo-Saxons which give us an idea of their own concept of themselves. In this article the 'Celts' are found over a large part of Europe for around 1000 years or so and then more or less disappear at the end of the Western Roman Empire. As for the ancient Greeks writing about the 'Keltoi' I would note: if an Anglo-Saxon chronicler had said a particular Anglo-Saxon kingdom was sited at the source of the river Thames in the Highlands of Scotland, one would assume there was an error of geography involved. But when Herodotus says the Keltoi live near the source of the Danube at the extreme west of Europe beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, the obvious geographic confusion is overlooked . Instead the Halstatt civilizations and successors are claimed for the 'Celtic' world and all their artifacts become Celtic. When similar artifacts are found elsewhere then 'Celtic expansions' are assumed. In fact it does seem that not enough scepticism is expressed when dealing with the ancient writers - after all the story about the Gauls sacking Rome also claims that the capitol was saved by the cackling of geese.193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also name evidence, placenames using 'nemet' turn up in Asia Minor and Gaul, Celtic personal names are also widespread and recognisible in Ancient sources. Of course the Ancients knew what culture the Galatians belonged to, and the Romans were pretty certain who the Senones, Taurisci etc were. So although there is a discontinuity around the edges between language, recorded history and archaeology, you would have a huge gap in European history and prehistory if you invalidated the concept of the Celts. It therefore remains a fundamentally useful concept. Urselius (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There is rather more to it than that, but I would happily do away with the term except as a linguistic one. The languages used should be the basis of any definition of "Celtic", but they do not neatly align with the material culture, let alone the genetics, although the disparities are not as large, nor in the same areas, as your comments suggest. But the article, and other ones, does at least touch on some of the problems. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What Herodotus said is this: "The Nile flows out of Libya, cutting through the middle of that country. And as I reason, calculating unknown things from known, it begins at the same distance as the Ister [Danube]. For the Ister, beginning in the land of the Celts and the city of Pyrene, flows through the middle of Europe. The Celts live beyond the Pillars of Hercules and border on the Cynetes, who are the westernmost inhabitants of Europe." Essentially he's admitting that he's rather hazy about the Danube, and he is trying to guess the 'unknown from what is known'. All he says is that the Celts lived in the furthest west of Europe, apart from the Cynetes of what is now Portugal, which is roughly true as far as we know: Brittany and north west Spain (he probably did not mean to include Britain and Ireland, but that would also be true in the lingustic sense of the term). What he calls "the city of Pyrene" may be a settlement somewhere close to the Pyrenees (which are named after a legendary figure called "Pyrene"), which would mean that Herodotus imagined that the Danube extended that far. This is hardly silly, given the difficulty of identifiying where a long river with mutiple tributaries is defined as "beginning", and which does indeed point towards the Pyrennes. We would expect that Herodotus would have some details confused, given that he didn't exactly have access to Google Earth. We don't need to ridicule him and dismiss everything as nonsense for that reason. It's a matter of fitting together what evidence seems to accord with other evidence. As for the cackling of geese, it's irrelevant to the topic, but why shouldn't that have an effect in ancient cultures filled with superstitions about animals as omens and augury? Paul B (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The geese were kept for religious reasons. Geese are quite territorial and do not like strangers. Allegedly, when the Gauls were climbing up the side of the Capitol the geese made a fuss and their cackling alerted the Romans. The story may not be true, but it was based on real knowledge of the behaviour of geese. Urselius (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Herodotus only says that Pyrene is "in the land of the Celts". He may have been thinking of somewhere near the Pyrenees, but the actual beginning of the Danube is also in an area believed to be settled by Celts (see Heuneburg). So we could summarise this as: "The Danube begins in Celtic territory and flows across the middle of Europe. Celtic territory is in the west of Europe, and extends almost as far as the westernmost part of Europe". This is entirely consistent with other evidence. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To some extent Paul B is proving the point of circularity. The only evidence for the Halstatt area being settled by 'Celts' is a dubious interpretation of the Histories of Herodotus. I wouldn't dismiss Herodotus but I would be careful about what I took from him. The most plausible interpretation of the passage quoted above is that Herodotus believed the 'Keltoi' lived on the Atlantic Coast of Europe, possibly near the Pyrenees. I doubt very much that he had knowledge of who lived around the Halstatt area. The Greeks would have a much better idea of coastal areas than places such as the source of the Danube. He assumed or someone told him that the Danube rose somewhere near ther Pyrennes or at least considerably further west than in reality. See the 'World Map' on the Herodotus page for a good reconstruction of the World according to Herodotus. It's also not clear what he meant by 'Keltoi' - probably the phrase 'ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies' was not around in those days. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the belief that the Halstatt culture was "Celtic" is I think relatively little based on ancient sources, but on such as evidence as there is of the languages they spoke, via place names etc, to some extent derived from working backwards from later periods and the lack of archaeological evidence of any non-Celtic speaking population being replaced by a Celtic-speaking one, or adopting Celtic languages for some reason. Whether they were all Celtic-speaking is a rather different matter. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it the link with 'the Celts' was made by Marie Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville using Herodotus as source. There is no solid evidence of what language was spoken in the area at the time of the Halstatt cultures. Even if the classical writers had known anything about the area they probably wouldn't have said anything about the language - the people there were all barbarians to the Greeks and Romans. It is well known that de Jubainville was influenced by French Nationalism - his idea was that the 'Celts' had ruled over the Germans in ancient times. This was a very popular view in France in the 19th century as the German states started to coalesce and threaten France militarily. You can see why the idea of a Celtic Halstatt would appeal to French Nationalists at the time. It should also be pointed out that Herodotus was not particularly interested in 'Keltoi' - the extract above comes at the end of a discussion of the Nile (which Herodotus claims was the same length as the Danube). 193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the history, but things have moved on since then. In any case de Jubainville was a specialist in the Celtic languages, who I'm sure used more than Herodotus as evidence. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence of what languages were spoken in the area at the time of the Halstatt cultures. As far as we know, they could have spoken a Germanic language or even Etruscan or some now extinct language. The 'Celtic Halstatt' theory is maintained by the use of circular arguments. I can't help but thinking that much of the article on 'Celts' is wishful thinking and fantasy.195.194.15.1 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for a 'Celtic' Halstatt?

I've looked to see if there is any evidence that the Halstatt culture was 'Celtic' or the area was inhabited by 'Celts'. So far all I can see is the idea is based on a mistaken interpretation of a passage in the Histories of Herodotus by Marie Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville (probably driven by 19th century French nationalism). The Greek and the later Roman writers didn't seem to have much of a clue of who was living there and the people who lived there left no writings. Does anyone know of any research into the matter that didn't take as a starting that 'the Celts' were living there?195.194.15.1 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is an interesting summary (from a well written web site on Britain) on how the Halstatt finds relate (or not) to the classical histories http://www.truebrits.org/part-1-the-iron-pages/mind-your-ps-and-qs/the-archeological-celts/ 193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that helpful - it is essentially all about Britain, & conflates the linguistic and ethnic much too easily. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

'The Mind Your Ps and Qs' section contains a useful short summary of the current state of understanding of the subject. I like the way it splits the subject into Historical, Linguistic and Archeological 'Celts'195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sort of like the first sentence of our article then? Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a tertiary source at best, and it doesn't seem to cite any sources, so there's no way of evaluating how accurate or up-to-date it is. And the spelling "Aberigines" suggests a distinct lack of peer review. I don't think this would pass the "reliable source" test. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What specifically is your "reliable source test"? Whether or not you agree with it? And how can you assess that it "doesn't seem to cite any sources"? I must disagree with the factuality of your assessment, it seems to consistently cite sources throughout, on every page. And perhaps you missed the page where the term 'aberigines' is accounted for as not a "typo". It seems to have been coined to describe the indigenous inhabitants of Britain (from the word Aber in Pictish and Welsh, Inver in Gaelic, meaning 'river mouth'), who left place names incorporating this word all over Britain. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I carefully used the word "seem" because I had only skimmed the site. On closer inspection, there are a few cites, but far from "consistently... on every page" as you claim. Still haven't found the explanation for the spelling "aberigines", and seeing as you infer the reasons for its coinage, I suspect neither have you. Finally, I would point out that the unfounded and unnecessarily personal accusation of bias with which you open your comment is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well", and doesn't speak well of your good faith. I will not respond to you again. Otherwise, what Bloodofox and Paul B said below. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that this website is a personal website, and an anonymous one at that. We should not be using this, nor even talking about it here other than to dismiss its employment on Wikipedia. There are mountains of published material out there on this topic. It would be much wiser to spend this time directing others to explore those mountains. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source for the same reason that most other "stuff on the internet" isn't: because it's just someone's web-site. It appears to be under construction, as many pages are empty. The author apparently likes puns. In addition to Aberigine we have Gael Force. The fact that it's not "reliable" in Wikipedia's sense does not, of course, mean that its content is inaccurate. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the OP question, I'm sure editors here can tell who it was that established that Halstatt were Celtic speakers. But, can it be reproduced how they established it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See[1] "tion. Thus an important cultural complex of central and western Europe at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. was the Hallstatt Culture, which stretched from Austria in the cast as far as northern Spain and Portugal in the west. And it is largely on the basis of the congruence between the distribution patterns of the urnfield burial grounds which are one of the principal characteristics of this culture and of certain place-name types which are linguistically Celtic that the bearers of this culture have been equated with the Celts (Powell 1963: 48-51)." Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - he had been told above. The quote might usefully go into notes here and at Halstatt culture. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Who had been told above? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The isp - [2] and elswhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That RS quote depicts Halstatt Culture as extending as far as Portugal in 500 BC, that should be clarified and the maps updated too because that isn't very clear in the articles. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the geographic extent included in the quote and the mention of 'urnfields', the article seems to be referring to the Bronze Age urnfield culture rather than Iron Age Hallstatt.193.105.48.21 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The point being that the one is thought to have (putting it simplistically) developed into the other - see Halstatt A-D. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked John Collis about this. He says that the argument that they originated in southern Germany is based upon the culture-historical paradigm) which equates language, material culture and 'race' as in the Third Reich, a discredited methodology, and that we really don't know the answer to the origin of the Celts. He disagrees with the Cunliff/Koch Iberian hypothesis and says that as Celtic languages seem to have been fairly widespread in central Europe we can't match them to either Hallstatt or La Tene, mentioning that even defining those cultures isn't easy (definition of archaeological cultures is an ongoing debate). I'm going to get his book The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it the trend is to regard Celtic languages as widespread in Europe (including eg Ireland) in the Bronze Age, so that Halstatt/La Tene did mostly speak Celtic, but were not the only ones to do so. But please add to the relevant articles as you go - the book doesn't appear to used as a ref yet. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

However, the Urnfield culture according to the Wiki page dedicated to it didn't stretch far into the Iberian peninsula and didn't reach what is now Portugal. Indeed, the whole idea of Bronze Age Celts in Western Europe doesn't match well with the map at the top of the Celts article showing 'Celtic expansions' in the Iron Age. Also if the Halstatt Culture is stretched as far as the Atlantic coast then, of course, there'll be places with Celtic names - but it still isn't clear to me that there is evidence that the core Halstatt Region (as defined by this article) was Celtic speaking during the Iron Age. Has anyone published a systematic study of place names in this region which shows repeated uses of Celtic linguistic forms (eg words for 'river', 'mountain', 'lake' etc)?193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a vast literature on places names, perhaps much of it in German, but I don't know any of it. But the Iberian Celts actually left inscriptions, in Tartessian, from pretty early (Iron Age), having contacts with the Phoenicians, though this is somewhat controversial - Koch is the big proponent here, seeing Iberia as where the Atlantic Celts came from. There are also personal names when these start to be recorded. The study of the question is complicated by the division between the disciplines of linguists and archaeologists, and now geneticists, who only understand the others' fields with difficulty. Linguistic stuff is unreadable for ordinary mortals. The maps at Celts are essentially based on the archaeology. Place-name studies can convince that a particular area once spoke Celtic; showing when they did so in prehistory is a different matter. We'd all better read Collis. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been plenty of studies published on this topic (oh, and Collis is terrible, I don't recommend his work to anyone). Two recent ones are Xavier Delamarre, Noms de lieux celtiques de l'Europe ancienne (-500 / +500) - Dictionnaire, 2012, Errance, and Patrick Sims-Williams, Ancient Celtic Place-Names in Europe and Asia Minor. Oxford 2006. Cagwinn (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong with Collis? Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If anyone has some Celtic derived placenames from Germany or Austria then maybe they could add them to Celtic toponymy because the ones listed there aren't very convincing. I think the jury is still out on 'Celtic Halstatt'.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any sources at all supporting a non-Celtic Hallstatt? Otherwise we're done here. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, step forward the Illyrians or 'The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture' as the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/283105/Illyria.193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Western areas usually assigned to Celtic languages, I mean. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you take the Hallstatt period to be 800BC-450BC then there's no evidence one way or the other for what languages were spoken in the area of Hallstatt influence, East or West (as I understand it the Lepontic Inscriptions are just outside what is normally called the Hallstatt area).193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Kresen and others

This user has twice inserted a picture of reconstructed costumes from the Polish Przeworsk culture, which according to our article seems to have been Germanic rather than Celtic. He and an ISP have also been fiddling with that article, the lead of which is now gobbledegook. He's also started a new Category:La Tène culture, currently only containing Przeworsk culture. There might be a case for the category, properly used as a sub of Category:Ancient Celts, though I'm not sure about this. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article is not supported by the given reference

This article begins: "The Celts (/ˈkɛlts/, occasionally /ˈsɛlts/, see pronunciation of Celtic) or Kelts were an ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture,[1]"

where reference [1] is 'Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia' edited by John T. Koch.

However, the reference does not support the phrase preceeding it. The encyclopedia defines Celtic Culture as that belonging to: 'peoples and countries that do, or once did, use Celtic Languages'. It does not claim that Celtic language speakers were an ethnic group called 'The Celts' who had a similar culture. It makes clear that speakers of Celtic Languages differed amongst themselves in terms of, for example, artwork, weapons or ritual sites. Indeed, it would be very surprising if the people of Iron Age Ireland, for example, had a similar culture to Roman-influenced Gaul. Maybe it would be better to start the article with a different phrase ie. one that can be supported by a reference.195.194.15.1 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to Celtoscepticism in this article?

I see that John T. Koch who edited 'Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia', notes the influence of Celtoscepticism in the debate over the ancient Celts but there is no explicit mention of the term in this article. This would seem to be a very big oversight.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free contribute a section on it. If you are new to Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to draft a section and post it here on the talk page.--Nowa (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go - might take me a bit of time though.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

By what right the Picts are pictured as Celts?

The Picts are more ancient people then Celts. They are not stated Celtic in British encyclopedia and should not be called by one.Edelward (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Which encyclopedia? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And who says they are an older group? Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been claims that non-indo-European languages were spoken among the peoples who have been lumped together with the generic label "Picts", but evidence is pretty thin. See Pictish language. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edelward believes Picts originated from North Africa. (S)He believes that the orthodox position that Picts were a celtic people (as evidenced by toponomy and anthroponymy) is a Scottish Nationalistic conspiracy. See Talk:Picts.

I initially assumed that Edelward was joking, but that doesn't seem to be the case. This situation may require the attention of an admin (not me as I'm WP:INVOLVED) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Because "Pict" means "coloured", it follows they must have been African. Obvious really. Paul B (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It probably has more to do with the supposed Fomorians substratum who were traditionally said to have immigrated to the British Isles from North Africa in the remotest prehistoric Antiquity. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what he says. See Talk:Picts. Anyway, Fomorians have no connection with Scotland as far as I know, unless you are a follower of Alan Simon's Celtic Rock Operas. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We can assume that any substratum that long ago would be thoroughly swamped and diffused after some 4000 years, making everyone equally their descendants, and making talk about anyone today "resisting Scottification of the Berber Picts" (as I just read on that talkpage) the extreme of tolerable ridiculousness. Take a look at the Hungarians, they moved into Europe only 1000 years ago and have been genetically swamped, that is to say, they now look like any other European population more than Mongolians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's getting this stuff from followers of David MacRitchie. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In the main, the populations of Britain and Ireland are descended from a mixture of people who walked there after conditions eased following the last ice age. It doesn't make much sense to say anyone was there first. Of course over the years there was a certain amount of immigration, which added to the local diversity. However, there is no evidence of 'Celtic' invasions and nobody knows the origin of the family of languages that we now call 'Celtic' nor how they came to be spoken in Britain and Ireland195.194.15.1 (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course much of the confusion in this subject comes from the popular perception that 'The Celts' were (and are) a 'race' of people who, after various adventures in the past, settled down in the fringes of North West Europe. If you accept this viewpoint then you can generate ideas like the Picts being replaced by 'Celts' (or the 'Celts' being replaced by 'Anglo-Saxons' in England).193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Diversification of the Culture of Insular Celts

According to this article: "Insular Celtic culture diversified into that of the Gaels (Irish, Scottish and Manx) and the Brythonic Celts (Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons) of the medieval and modern periods." However, no evidence of this "diversification" is given in this article. Perhaps such a bold statement should be supported by some evidence? One might ask: in what way were/are the Bretons like the Welsh? Why were/are the Scottish people more similar to the Irish than to the Cumbrians, for example?. How can it be ruled out that the Gaelic Languages and Welsh did not 'diversify' outside of Britain and Ireland?. Is there any evidence of a unified 'Celtic' culture within Britain and Ireland that later got 'diversified' into two parts?193.105.48.21 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion/Druids

The page on Druids notes that most of what we "know" about them and their religious beliefs and practices is an invention of pseudo-scholarship. This page, however, discusses all of this in detail with an authoritative tone. Perhaps the entire section should be redone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleahg (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The few mentions seem ok, repeating Roman claims mostly, except for: "Druids fulfilled a variety of roles in Celtic religion, serving as priests and religious officiants, but also as judges, sacrificers, teachers, and lore-keepers. Druids organised and ran religious ceremonies, and they memorised and taught the calendar. Other classes of druids performed ceremonial sacrifices of crops and animals for the perceived benefit of the community" which has a reference to a book on Celtic religion, but seems to be rather more than we know. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole article is best looked at as a mixture of fact and fantasy. There's no evidence that the 'Celts' ever had a common religion. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That'll be why we say "Celtic religious patterns were regionally variable...". Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to say explicitly that there is no evidence for a 'Celtic Religion' or a 'Celtic Mythology' (or at least one covering the area claimed in this article as being inhabited by 'Celts')?195.194.15.1 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Much of that is sourced from

• Sjoestedt, Marie-Louise (originally published in French, 1940, reissued 1982) Gods and Heroes of the Celts. Translated by Myles Dillon, Berkeley, CA, Turtle Island Foundation ISBN 0-913666-52-1, pp. 24–46.

Are you saying she is a bad source? Alatari (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

All cultures and religions have variations within them, over time and geography. According to an apparently endless parade of anonymous IPs, the only culture that disqualifies from existing is the Celtic. But you may as well say there's no such thing as Christianity because it is and has been practised so differently across different times, countries and denominations. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The current top expert is Miranda Aldhouse-Green, Prof. at Cardiff, who has published a string of books on Celtic religion/Druids that are cautious about the claims made, if not always cautious enough for some archaeologist reviewers. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that the link between the god Lugus (worshipped in Iberia) and the Irish and Welsh mythological/legendary characters Lugh and Lleu is just speculation. There's absolutely no evidence that Lugus was a god of the Irish or British. It's almost like saying Luke of the New Testament was a god of the Celts because it sounds a bit like Lugus195.194.15.1 (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is solid evidence that the statuette in the Museum of Brittany, Rennes, depicts Brigantia/Brigid as opposed to Minerva or another godess?193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I took the photo. That's just what it says in the museum. You'd have to write to them. Paul B (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that info 193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about language/culture?

The introduction to this article contains the phrase "The earliest archaeological culture that may justifiably be considered Proto-Celtic is the Late Bronze Age Urnfield culture of Central Europe". However, 'Proto-Celtic' is a language not an "archaeological culture". Also I don't think Nora Chadwick fully supports this notion. She thought the Celtic languages 'crystallised' within the Urnfield communities of Middle Europe. However, she does not offer any evidence - she admits it is an assumption that the language 'crystallised' within these communities.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

See my comments in the following section.Jembana (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Celts/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The issue of the limited scope needs to be dealt with. More citations are necessary, both for uncited statements and simply overall. --Fsotrain09 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)