Talk:Celt

From Academic Kids

Contents

1 Barbarism 2 La Tene refeences 3 Ethnicity 4 Galatia, etc. 5 Celt -- the tool 6 Wishful thinking 7 'Celt' 8 Celts in Britain 9 Indigenous 10 Celtic Art 11 "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" adapted from Cu Chulainn? 12 Hallstatt as border against the east 13 Pronunciation of the word 'Celt', 'Celtic', et al... 14 The map misses a region 15 What about the Basques? 16 Origin of British/Irish Celts 17 Derek Ross objection to intro clarification 18 Volcae 19 Galatia

Barbarism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Tene refeences

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

If you insist... sjc

Ethnicity

Could someone explain further the bit about Celts being connected by culture and language, but not ethnicity? JHK

I do not think this make sense. The bit being referred to is "It is important to note from the outset that the term Celt denotes a cultural and linguistic identity and not one of ethnicity." According to Mirriam-Webster "ethnic" means "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". That certainly seems to apply to the celts so I am removing the sentence. --Eob

I think we were guilty of a little terminological inexactitude at worst here. What we were really arguing the toss about was interrelatedness and certainly if you use a broadly based definition such as Mirriam-Webster then you are playing in a different park. sjc

Galatia, etc.

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

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

Celt -- the tool

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

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

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

---

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

Wishful thinking

I removed

which was harmonious with nature

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

'Celt'

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

Celts in Britain

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

Anne Wareham

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous

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

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

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

Celtic Art

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

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

You suck and that's sad.*BOOHOO*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallstatt as border against the east

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

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

The word Celt and its derivatives should in American English actually be pronounced Seltik (unless actually spelled with a K, in which case the hard K sound is correct). The 'K' spelling is considered to be a variant and wasn't countenanced until fairly recently. It being the more common method of pronunciation is even more recent (the 1960s, give or take). Prior to that, it was nearly always a soft C.

Sorry for being a pedant about this. -- 64.132.82.61 (Subjugator)

I can't speak for American English, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "should be" pronounced, but where I live (in Wales) the pronouncation is always "keltik". The "seltik" version is only ever used for sports teams. Are you trying to prescribe or describe? i.e. do you actually hear people talking in this way, or are you providing us with a rule for us to follow? --Nickco3 14:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly American about this. It's just one of those pronunciations used by English speakers who assume the C followed by E should always be pronounced as if it was S. There are plenty of English speakers doing this who have never been near America so I don't see why you think that this is purely an American English pronunciation. The reason that the K spelling is used more often nowadays is for the same reason that spellings like thru or lite are used -- in order that people with poor reading skills are not misled into mispronunciation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:51, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Well, the Greeks called them "Keltoi" and although the Romans spelled it with a C, their C was of course a K sound. I don't know how much more prior than that you can get; did the "selt" version not arise because that is how "ce" is usually pronounced in English? Adam Bishop 04:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word "celt" was borrowed into English twice, once from German, once from French. The earliest nineteenth century Celticists, that is those practicing the academic disciplines involved in studying Celtic languages, literatures, art, history, etc.--were German speakers. So the academic study has traditionally used the "K" version, rather than the "S" version, which is reserved for basketball in Boston, and football in Glasgow.

DigitalMedievalist 04:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lisa

-Hrm...now that I've looked further into it, I'm getting conflicting information on the etymology of this word. Charles Harrington Elster countenances the soft S sound, citing its source as being from the French Celte and Celtique and not the Latin or Greek (Celta, Celticus (Latin), and Keltoi (Greek). However, when I checked Dictionary.com, they report Greek (with a question mark) as being the correct source. Elster has some evidence to back up his position, and lists a large number of dictionaries and lexicographers that back him up with the pronunciation he has selected (many of which didn't even include the hard K sound for Celtic spelled with a C until the late in the twentieth century (v. The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations). -Subjugator

I don't see the point of appealing to the French pronunciation. Surely, it ultimately came from the Latin, and there many French words which begin with a soft C which have as their origin a Latin word with a hard one. --Saforrest 23:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

- I would say that appealing to the French pronunciation would come from the fact that it's the origin of the word for English usage. If we'd taken it from Latin, then the Latin would be correct, but the theft is from the French. Further, this isn't just an appeal to the French, but the fact that until very recently the only countenanced pronunciation is the soft 'C'. Elster has about a dozen examples of major dictionaries and/or lexicographers that did not accept the hard 'K' sound until very late in the 20th century.

This strikes me as a bit of a pointless argument. Scholarly academics studying ancient history, Celtic studies, Celtic languages, or linguistics are all going to use the "hard" c or "k" sound. It's convention at this point. We're not going to change it here. I'm thinking of doing at poll at the next Celtic conference in Europe and asking there; I've already done polls at the Harvard Celtic conference and the University of California conference; K is the for the people, the languages and the cultures. The soft c or "s" is for athletic teams.

DigitalMedievalist 01:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lisa

What do *linguists* say about the proper pronunciation? When questioning speech, I'm not sure that a scholar on the subject matter being discussed is necessarily a good source. Many marine biologists will tell you that the plural of 'octopus' is 'octopi', when it is in fact 'octopuses' that is correct. The newfound popularity of the pronunciation of a word in an incorrect way does not sanction its use. Similarly, the popularity of pronouncing 'eschew' as if it were anything other than something approximating 'S chew' does not make it correct usage...it isn't 'S shoe', 's-kew', or anything other than its correct usage, as above.

/rant  :)

Subbie

Dude, you don't need to be a linguist for this one. Really. But after four years of of grad level linguistics classes, I'll do in a pinch <g> Keep in mind that living languages change. Common practice shapes language, whether or not we want it to. I've checked fifteen dictionaries, just to write a wretched FAQ on the pronunciation of "Celt," including one each from Australia and Canada, but most especially the OED, Chamber's and the American Heritage Dictionary, beloved by English linguists world over. NONE of them present /s/ or /k/ as the single "correct" pronunciation. Take a look <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/C0193000.html">here</a> and you'll notice the trice blessed AHD doesn't make a decision between them. But the convention, based on current practice, is that the /k/ is used for the peoples, and the /s/ for the sports. Either way, /s/ or /k/ people will figure out what you mean.

DigitalMedievalist 15:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Lisa)

It is true that the /k/ pronunciation has become more common, except in the names of sports teams, and no arguments about which pronunciation is more "correct" will change that. However, I do want to point out that in terms of "correctness" there is no reason why Celt < Lat. Celta < Gk. Keltes should be any different from center < centrum < kentron, Cynic < Cynicus < Kunikos or any of the myriad other words of Classical origin that have come into English. Certainly no one argues that we should be pronouncing German (<Lat. Germanus) with a hard g, even if it was originally pronounced this way in Latin, and still is in German (germanisch = Germanic) --68.78.133.53 10:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Iustinus))

Agreed that "there is no reason", except that pronunciations are conventions, and if you study the Celts you'll find that the convention for pronouncing 'Celt' is the /k/ pronunciation, and if you study the Germans the convention for pronouncing 'German' isn't with a /g/ sound. Language is full of ill-motivated exceptions. — B.Bryant 11:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem with that. I just find it annoying when people try to claim the /k/ version is somehow more "accurate." Granted, no one's really saying that here, so I'm arguing with straw men, i guess. Just a pet peave. --68.78.42.144 09:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Celt or Keltoi do not represent Celt's name for themselves The Greek “Keltoi” is an ambiguous transliteration of what the Greeks heard the Celts call themselves. The confusion with the spelling and pronunciation reflects the unique quality of a sound in Celtic languages that is today variously represented by the letter G or C.

The modern Irish call their language and nation Gaeilge (Gaedhilge before the spelling reforms of the 1940s). The Gs in the word Gaeilge are lightly lenited, and the sound falls, to an English-speaker’s ear, somewhere between G and K. In Irish the G is voiced deeper in the throat than in English, bringing forth the projected breath of a K. Irish has 60-plus phonemes (English has about 40), and this is one of those unique sounds.

The Greeks heard the Celts call themselves “gal-“ something with the lenited G, and when they transliterated the sound, their choice fell to the Kappa side of the sound, not the Gamma. They chose “kel-“ and not ”gal-“. The Romans changed the Kappa to a C and we inherited the results. Today the Irish use the Roman alphabet G to indicate the sound in their own language.

Another example of the variant pronunciation is the Irish word for sword, Claideamh. This is cognate with the Latin Gladius = sword, from which we get the English words gladiator, “swordsman,” and gladiolus, a plant with a sword-shaped leaf. Claideamh has entered the English language as claymore, or large sword, from Claideamh Mor.

Again, the initial consonant is lenited. Where the Latin uses the hard G for Gladius, which has the same Indo-European source as the Celtic word, the Celt pronounces the word with a lenited G that cannot be accurately transliterated as a Roman G or a Roman C, or a Greek Gamma or Greek Kappa for that matter. It’s somewhere in between. In this instance, in Irish the same sound that is represented by a G in Gaeilge is spelled with a C in Claideamh. The Irish are stuck with this confusion within their own language just as we’re stuck with Celtic-with-a-K-sound in English. They (we) need a new letter!

From Asia Minor to the Atlantic, areas once inhabited by speakers of Celtic languages are called Galatia, Galacia, Gaul, and Galicia, from Turkey to Poland to Austria, France and Spain. Is this some massive coincidence? More likely, the “gal-“ sound in these names for peoples and places indicates “Celt”.

The Celts have always called themselves Gaul or Gael, names with a “gal-“ sound, something like a G followed by a vowel usually represented by an A, followed by an L. Celt and Gael is exactly the same word with the same meaning.

Regarding the origin of the Irish in Gaul or Spain: a native of the western Spanish region of Galicia is called a Gallego. There’s that “gal-“ sound, indicating the presence of the Celt. Modern Gallegos speak a Romance language more akin to Portuguese than Spanish, no trace of Celtic in the tongue. In Spanish the double-L is pronounced like a Y, so the word sounds like ga-yeh-go. But if you pronounce the double-L like an L, ga-leh-go, the name’s similarity to Gaeilge snaps into focus, that “gal-“ again. Irish myth says that the Gaels first viewed Ireland from a tower on the coast of Spain, and this is a clear linguistic pointer to that historic possibility. -- A student.

Sorry, but you can't use "Gaeilge" to prove your "gal-" idea. The modern form gaeilge developed from an earlier goídelc, with the d gradually softening away to nothing. Similarly, gael developed from earlier goídel, and the similarity with galli, galatae, gallego etc is a coincidence. Caesar makes clear that a large group of Gauls called themselves Celtae, but were called Galli by the Romans, so it could be you've got it backwards.--Nicknack009 20:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The map misses a region

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

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

What about the Basques?

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of British/Irish Celts

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

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

Derek Ross objection to intro clarification

User:India objects to the following paragraph for some reason and has unilaterally decided to remove it. I have no great objection to this and will happily acquiesce if a reasonable case for its removal can be made.

They also share many of the same traits in their cultures and languages as the original Celts. (They are said to have descended from tribes or nations from mainland Celtic regions, such as Gaul and Belgium, and are known to have moved into Great Britain and Ireland, such as the Atrebates, Menapii, and Parisii.

However I do not like like the deletion of material from an article without explanation and will continue to replace it on behalf of the original contributor until an explanation for its removal is forthcoming. A mere parroting of "Cite your sources" is not enough since most of the article is uncited and thus by that criterion subject to deletion. I'd like to know why these two sentences are particularly objectionable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

1) My initial point related to the statement "(They are said to have descended from tribes or nations from mainland Celtic regions, such as Gaul and Belgium, and are known to have moved into Great Britain and Ireland, such as the Atrebates, Menapii, and Parisii.)". The phrase "They are said" needs a source. Who said it?

2) This is well known amongst historians and indeed is referred to in the same article more than once. Amongst others Simon James book "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People Or Modern Invention?" makes the point that the Romans never used the term 'Celtic' in reference to the peoples of the Atlantic archipelago, the term was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18th century. In particular, there is no record of the term "Celt" being used in connection with the inhabitants of Ireland and Britain prior to the 18th century. Many people are under the same misapprehension that you have reflected in your reply. It is worth making the point in the header.

India 15:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Copied relevant discussion from my talk page) -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Point (1) is reasonable and I am sure that a source could be found without too much trouble. Point (2) ? The fact that the Romans did not refer to the offshore Europeans as Celts is not particularly troubling to me for various reasons which I can expand upon if necessary. And there is a plausible linguistic reason why the word Celt might not have been much used in English before the 18th century: a lot of Latin terms were introduced into English or became more common at that time for scientific use. For instance the word "oxygen" was not used before the 18th century but this should not be taken as evidence that the element oxygen did not exist prior to that time. By analogy the mere fact that no one used the word Celt to refer to Britons/Irishmen before the 18th century cannot be taken as evidence that that usage is invalid. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

<Sigh>. It is rather hurtful to be accused of vandalism over what was merely a difference of opinion over what should be included in the article; one that I willingly discussed and, I hope, successfully resolved. Vandals are out to intentionally destroy articles such as this and I have never done such a thing to any Wikipedia article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

IMO we should remove the whole "contested term" section. The concept of 'Celt' is valid both linguistically and anthropologically; I'm not sure one author's stance on modern social politics is germane enough to include in a dictionary article. We certainly can't include everyone's opinion. — B.Bryant 23:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly in light of the earlier discussion, I am inclined to agree with you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the archaeological case is quite overwhelming. See my edits to Contested Term which I would be pleased to expand on. adamsan 19:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The argument you summarize there depends on (a) absence of evidence being evidence of absence, (b) celticity being primarily a matter of gentics, and (c) minorities always remaining minorities. And the linguistic argument is merely baffling. Surely Cunliffe knows that "the Neolithic" lasted a long time and doesn't refer to the same time everywhere, and that the Celtic languages must of necessity have reached their traditional homeland after "Indo-European language reached Europe", even if that was in the Neolithic. Does he actually put a number on how long ago he thinks Celtic languages have been spoken in the isles? Does he actually take issue with e.g. Mallory's chart that presents OIr spliting off from the continental languages just over 2000 years ago, and Welsh & Cornish splitting less than 1500 years ago? Or with Mallory's claim that "General archaeological and linguistic opinion assigns the intrusions which carried the Celtic languages into Britain and Ireland to sometime during the first millenium BC, although some scholars still hold to an earilier date."? I haven't read Cunliffe, but the claims as stated in the current version of the article are just too vague and too full of unspoken assumptions to be taken seriously as an argument. — B.Bryant 21:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can only provide an archaeologist's arguments, based more on the material record than linguistic or genetic data but I can further summarise Iron Age Britain's passages. I am certain that when Cunliffe says the neolithic he knows exactly what he's talking about and the Atlantic neolithic does refer to a pretty tight time frame compared with the wider Eurasian neolithic. His point is that the languages emerged very early on and this talk of traditional homelands and folk movements is meaningless. He doesn't mention any charts but considers the differences between Brythonic and Gaelic to have split due to the relative isolation of north Britain compared to the more continentally-influenced south. He says modern linguists now accept the archaeological data and are re-assessing their long-held beliefs in this field. I don't know, I'm not a linguist - how long ago did Mallory publish his theories? Clearly the two disagree.

I added those passages to the Contested Term section as I feared it was in danger of being deleted altogether, please add your own arguments and I will go and find some more archaeological bits and pieces. adamsan 18:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you wish. The information which you have just added is worthwhile, informative stuff and, unlike the earlier edit to the section, I have no problem wih it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The following linguistic facts are totally beyond doubt - Firstly, that the Goidelic languages (Ireland, Scotland and Man) are closely related to the Brythonic Languages (Wales, Britanny and Cornwall), which are in turn related slightly more distantly to the Continental Celtic languages, and even more distantly to the Italic languages. For an example of how closely they're related, compare Gaulish 'ater' and Irish 'athair' - 'father', also, Gaulish 'maponos', Welsh 'mab' - 'son'. BovineBeast

Volcae

The article says that Volcae means "Falcon" in Gaulish: what was the reference used for this statement? Decius 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

there isn't one -- just remove it. The name is either cognate to English folk, or to the wolf-word. dab (ᛏ) 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Galatia

I just realized that Galatia (in Anatolia) only became Celtic in the 3rd century BC, so arguable the image caption is wrong. It's "the greatest extent" of Celtic territory, but diachronic, it doesn't show the Celtic lands at any given point in time. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)