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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article exemplifies why many people don't trust wkipedia. 77Mike77 ( talk) 06:08, 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)
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)
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)
((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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So far we have Mallory, Anthony, Lewis and Pereltsvaig. Say when.-- 50.7.188.250 ( talk) 18:02, 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. -- Fsotrain 09 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article exemplifies why many people don't trust wkipedia. 77Mike77 ( talk) 06:08, 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)
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)
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)
((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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So far we have Mallory, Anthony, Lewis and Pereltsvaig. Say when.-- 50.7.188.250 ( talk) 18:02, 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. -- Fsotrain 09 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)