Talk:Celts/Archive 4

message: Those interested in the DNA aspects might be interested in this:
http://www.ingenious.org.uk/Read/Identity/Ancestorsanddescendents/Tofindanancestor/
--Pandaplodder 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on DNA 

message: I suggested a move to Celts in December (see above; most of our ethnic group articles are at the plural form), and there was some agreement. Then I forgot about it. If nobody objects, I'll do the move now. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I forgot, too.  Let's definitely move it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I was wanting to ask if any geneticist, archeologists, or historians has ever thought that the reason why the mtDNA of basque people and the mtDNA of celtic people are so different is because proto-celtic males took proto-germanic women as wives? I was also wondering if any linguists have ever hypothesized that the reason why the basque speak a non-indoeuropean language and the celtic people do is because the proto-germanic women who coupled with proto-celtic males taught their kids the proto-germanic language and therefore the celtic languages are offshoots of the proto-germanic language? In Brian Sykes book "The Blood of the Isles" it is said that a few males on the British Isles have a very ancient germanic Y-chromosome that was probably on the british isles before the celts arrived. Also basque people look way more dark complected than most of the people of ireland do, so it might be that proto-celtic males who took proto-germanic women as wives and had lighter complected kids. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.200.113 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-celtic males take proto-germanic females as wives? 

message: User The Ogre is erasing Spain and adding Portugal as an area of 90% R1b. He is a liar and manipulator, because he knows that 90% is only seen in the Basque country in Spain, nowhere in Portugal. Look at the values for Spain and Portugal and other places in this article . I urge him to provide a single study that says 90% or even close to it in Portugal. In fact Portugal has the lowest values in the Iberian Peninsula as you can see. But this is my last word here. I am tired of liars and manipulators. Wiki stinks with all these people around. 65.11.114.84 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you will not be able to escape liars and manipulators by leaving the Wikipedia. Real life is full of them too. It's just easier to miss them because they don't leave a permanent record of their every move in real life as they are forced to do on the Wiki. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 65.11.114.84, you even called me a liar in my talk page! Is that a proper way to behave? The Ogre 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tired of liars and manipulators 

message: Few "races" of people have been as confused or unspecific as that of the Celts.  
If look at the descriptions of the Celts from the Greek or Roman accounts (people who, by the way, have fought the "historical" Celts and therefore should know), we see very Indo - European features.  They typically ascribe the Celts as being a blond race, tall and pale; probably not so different than the Germanic or Norse peoples.  
This interpretation of the Celtic peoples differs greatly from recent (by comparison) English ascription; who describe the Celts as being shorter darker and decidedly Iberian.  Interestingly, these authors describe the Irish, Welsh and Scottish as being Celtic, and many of these aforementioned peoples don't fit the description they claimed for the Celts.  What's more, the Irish, Welsh and Scottish are on average, fairly different in appearance from the Spanish/Iberians.  
This may be a result of the sort of Anglo Saxon mystique that had a hold on England for so long, and many English writers may have made these assumptions to differentiate themselves from the other British peoples.  This would make their claim of Anglo Saxon descent all the more believable.
Belorix 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think many people tend to forget that Celticism was a cultural grouping, rather than a racial one.  Is there a single genetic pattern that defines "Europeans", or "Americans".  Are all Italian citizens closely related genetically?  So it was with the Celts.  Did every "Roman" come from Rome?  Were all of Alexander's armies born in Macedonia?  What made the citizens of the Roman Empire "Roman"?  Their acceptance of Roman laws, customs, language and identity, that's what.  That's what made the Iceni, the Parissi, Dumnonii, Boii, etc. Celtic - they each had a vein of common "Celtic" culture to a greater or lesser extent.  The modern British are quite different from the French - or even from the Germans, with whom they share a heritage - but all can be considered European, and not just by virtue of geography. Gabhala 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Confusion 

message: Many people have claimed that the Celts were never in Britain due to the fact that Julius Caesar never called the Britons Celts.  
This argument is severely flawed though as Caesar clearly calls the Britons relatives to the Gauls in many cases in his "Gallic Wars".  
For instance Caesar attributes his reason for invading Britain to "punishing" them for aiding their Gallic relatives.
It should also be noted that the very word "Celt" was only often used to denote the Celtae tribe in Gaul, and many Romans rarely referred to any other "Barbarians" as "Celts".  Nonetheless, most Roman and Greek writers agreed that the tribes of Gaul and Britain were all interrelated.
Belorix 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in your natiolistic fanatasies. Neither the Romans nor the Greeks ever thought people in the British isles were "Celts". All europeans, nay all huamsn, are  "interrelated", so that's a non-starter.
First off, you might wanna sign your name.  Second off, I am not British.  Third off, I can't even read your statement about "huamsn", learn how to type.  Forth off, I gave you the very source - or have you even read Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars?  The archaeology and historical remains support my claim.  Furthermore, any more personal attacks will result in your expellation from this page; which would do us all a blessing. --Belorix 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin Renfreew is an Archaeologists not a historian.  Also, I think the "Although archaeological evidence has often been proved unreliable in the past" comment is misleading, not to mention a bit harsh. --Tle585 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celts in Britain 

message: Ever since the "Celtic" peoples of western Europe were scanned for the Haplogroup "R1b", there has been raging debate as to who exactly the Celts were.
First off, I must stress that it is dangerous to claim the haplogroup evidence as definitive, as haplogroups only account for one part of the human genome.  What's more, it should be stressed that the people being scanned are, in fact, part of or descendant from the Celts.  For instance, many of the British who exhibit this gene aren't alone, the Basque people of Spain and France have this gene in excess.  So if this gene is a definitive marker, the Basques and the British should be almost identical in appearance; and they aren't.
Perhaps a better and safer bet should be invested in the occurrence of a dysfunctional MC1R receptor, which is deeply associated with pale skin and red hair; both of which have historically been attributed to the Celts by the Romans and Greeks themselves.  
An alternative could be the concept that the true Celts of history were people with the haplogroup R1b gene and a dysfunctional MC1R receptor.
--Belorix 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haplogroup Controversy 

message: There are many completely unsupported statements begging for citations which greatly diminish the value of this article; I have removed a few of them under German migration (and I changed the title) to spark some sort of response ... Let's remove them or support them. Abtract 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'd support just mercilessly removing the vast majority of these unsupported statements – sadly, this subject, in particular, attracts a depressing amount of rubbish. garik 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsupported statements

message: This entire wiki is trash. There was no Celtic migration to the British isles, only a few artifacts that found their way by just being near the celts. It's unbelievable this 19th century bigoted nationalistic bullcrap is an article at wikipedia, but nothing surprises me in this hellhole. -- someone anonymous who forgot to sign the comment with ~~~~
I've not seen ANY British nationalism on this page whatsoever.  For the record; British nationalism emphasizes the Anglo Saxon, NOT the Celt.  In fact, as far as British nationalism goes; the Celts were subserviant losers to first the Roman and then the Saxon.  As far as your idea of NO Celtic migration to the Isles goes, then tell me why there are both Halstatt and La Tene burials in Britain - many of which directly correspond with those in known Celtic areas.  Also, tell me why the Romans (who were there - and therefore should know- not you) record many of the tribes in Britain with the EXACT same names as those in Gaul.  This Wiki is a bad page, but people like you make it far worse.--Belorix 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "For the record; British nationalism emphasizes the Anglo Saxon", are you sure? i mean, really really sure? Gazh 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another laughing stock of wikipdia thanks to British Editors 

message: I have made quite a few changes to try and make this article easier to follow and added a new section on "other regions" (mostly from "The Celtic Empire" by Peter Beresford Ellis) as it seemed to me that it needed a wider view of the pan-European Celtic story. 
I have also reorganised a bit so please view my edits together. Jameswilson 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my stuff (May 23) 

message: Sorry, I got logged off when I did this.
I removed the Celtic Astronomy section, because the content is outdated. The Celts are no longer thought to have existed as a people from the Stone Age to the Roman period, but to be a specific group of people existing not much further back than their first literary mention as the "Keltoi" around 500 BC, therefore the idea of Stonehenge being built by the druids has been dismissed. I've copied the section below for anyone to check, or possibly to move to another page?: (Note the date of when the book was written, 1877.)
"Celtic astronomy
Over 4,000 years ago, large monuments were erected worldwide, most notably the Great Pyramid of Giza, Rujm el-Hiri and Stonehenge. The latter was built by one or more Celtic societies at least 5,500 years ago. Its dual role, as a calendar and as a site of religious ceremonies, reflects how the Celts comingled astronomy and religion. Their knowledge of astronomy was relatively advanced since they had adopted a Copernican view of the Solar System 3,000 years before Christ. Although (at first) the Celts were not centered on farming, thus requiring little astronomical observation, they projected their firm belief in the after-life into space. The Moon was considered holy because souls wondered there; the Milky Way was a town filled with free souls; Cassiopeia was the domain of fairies. Blake, John F., (1877) "Astronomical Myths". MacMillan and Co., pp.29-48, reprinted (2003) Kessinger Publishing ISBN: 0766165965." 
Dragonhelmuk 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be re-adding such a section with new material that is well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you state why? Are you going to be discussing specifically Celtic astronomy? Perhaps you could explain what that is. Paul B 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. There os material from Dillon and Chadwick that I am reading. related to the Coligny Calendar, as well as other material acribed to  Anthedius and others. Will be adding such section in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's very doubtful if there's anything meaningfully "Celtic" about the CC. Paul B 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Coligny Calendar is one of the few artefacts with Gaulish words written on it. That surely gives it a better claim to "Celticity" than almost any other item. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is Celtic in that sense. I was referring to the suggestion that it is evidence of a distinctively "Celtic" form of astronomy. Paul B 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Celtic Astronomy Section

message: I am researching material to expand the section on Celtic women, in particular what is recorded about  Teuta, Camma, Cartimandua, and if course, Boudicca. Any help wouyld be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be able to help with Boudicca and Cartimandua.  You should go to www.history.com and check out what they have to say. --Belorix 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again I would suggest that you get a copy of Peter Berresford Ellis's book, A Brief History of the Celts. This has a short but excellent chapter on "Celtic Women", which as well as describing notable female Celts, gives some background on the behaviour of, and treatment of, Celtic women in general, as seen through the eyes of Roman and Greek commentators of the time, and of those who codified the Brehon law.  Very interesting stuff. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's articles on Boudica and Cartimandua contain links to the ancient sources, which I would suggest you read before Berresford Ellis. He's far from the worst, but he's a romantic and he idealises the Celts somewhat. --Nicknack009 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have Beresford Ellis's book, and other sources as well. I do not see much of an issue in providing the different viewpoints available on the subject. The ancient texts, of course, are somewhat biased as these were written by Roman and Greek historians that had a very specific view of the Celts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no doubt that Ellis is extremely enthusiastic about his subject, he's a Celtophile and a half no less, but he generally provides reasonable sources to back up his more "romantic" statements. However as you suggest, it's always worthwhile to read the ancient sources if possible and at least he lets you know what they are so that you can check them out yourself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As said above, we can present all significant viewpoints, and that includes Beresford Ellis, other contemporary historians, as well as the ancient ones. Put together, these viewpoints are part of what makes this subject so fascinating, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, Jossi. It is a fascinating subject. It never fails to amaze me when I discover that yet another aspect of the modern "global" culture has its roots in Celtic culture whether it is something as important as the concept of the Holy Trinity or as insignificant as the word "car". -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might be interested in Evans' 2004 Quantified Identities BAR publication which discusses the changing nature of female roles in Iron Age France.  In brief, by examining grave goods and their placement in graves to argue a changing nature of gender in the later Iron Age (Late Hallstatt to middle La Tene Periods). He makes an argument in favor of unrestricted, or possibly mutliple gender roles transforming into a more gender divided society through contact with the mediterreanian. --24.21.45.224 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic women 

message: The comments suggesting that there are no genetic affinities between British Isles Celts and Continetal Europe Celts is ludicrous.  There is OVERWHELMING evidence that the "Celtic haplogroup" originated in Iberia and migrated north.  There have been several north / south and south / north Celtic migrations throughout history.  Read the literature please...
Anthropologique 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me what passages you're talking about.  Could you quote anything directly?  If you have any good sources on this, please let us know. garik 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the section about affinities lacks competing viewpoints. I will be adding some of these in the next day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be a common haplogroup, but are we really in a position to call that haplogroup Celtic? Celtic is an "include all" word nowadays. Was it celtic culture or celtic people that spread into Iberia before moving North into Ireland? We should be very careful before attributing names to haplogroups. --86.146.194.32 15:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally inaccurate statements

message: " However, modern genetic studies have shown that the original spread of modern man across Europe took place more than 20,000 years ago and re-expanded from refuges after the last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago. It now seems likely that the farmers from the Middle East did not generally displace the hunter-gatherers but that farming was slowly adopted by the latter. However, the association of the Indo-European language family with farming remains unproven."
The second half of the paragraph is generally thought to be incorrect.  The most commoly accepted scenario is that the Indo-European language was spread by the introduction of animal husbandry by the "Proto-Indo_Europeans' out of the Pontic steppe rather than agriculture from the middle east. Ie Anatolian vs Kurghan hypothesis.
===Response===
It seems that there was a significant spread of people from the Middle East into Eastern Europe in the Neolithic but few came to Western Europe (though including my ancestor) and thus probably farming was spread in this region by acculturisation.  The association with IE remains a conjecture as the dates dont seem to match well. Adresia 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: It seems that there was a significant spread of people from the Middle East into Eastern Europe in the Neolithic but few came to Western Europe (though including my ancestor) and thus probably farming was spread in this region by acculturisation.  The association with IE remains a conjecture as the dates dont seem to match well. Adresia 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: To everyone interested, there is a dispute going on at List of Celtic tribes, regarding the inclusion in the list of the Celtic tribes in Iberia. You can check the relevant discussions at Talk:List of Celtic tribes#Iberia. Thank you. The Ogre 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute at [[List of Celtic tribes]] 

message: Am I colour-blind, or are the colours discussed in the caption of :Image:Celts 800-400BC.PNG slightly off?  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  colours on image caption 

message: I quote:
A large portion of the indigenous populations of Britain and Ireland today may be partially descended from the ancient peoples that have long inhabited these lands, before the coming of Celtic and later Germanic peoples, language and culture. Little is known of their original culture and language, but remnants may remain in the names of some geographical features, such as the rivers Clyde, Tamar and Thames, whose etymology is unclear but almost certainly derive from a pre-Celtic substrate.[citation needed] 
Before the coming of the Celts - citation needed. Again we see the word 'may be' as in 'populations of Britain and Ireland today may be partially descended from the ancient peoples ' - citation or is this pure POV ?
:It isn't worded well is it? There are plenty of sources that suggest the modern people of 'these islands' are not just partially but overwhelmingly descended from the Ancient Britons, and that the Celtic and germanic 'cultures' that are inplace were possibly put in place or passed over from visiting/assimilated minorities. Gazh 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take care with the use of the words "Ancient Britons" - the term "Britons" is widely accepted to refer to a branch of the Celts.  On the other hand, the prior indigeneous populace is believed to have been "Pictish".Gabhala 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong Gabhala, the Picts inhabited what is roughly modern day Scotland, the Ancient Britons is an umbrella term that existed before people differentiated the Picts from the other indiginous peoples of Britain. Gazh 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celts in Britain 

message: I quote:
The name "Gauls"
English "Gaul(s)" and Latin Gallus or Galli might be from an originally Celtic ethnic or tribal name (perhaps borrowed into Latin during the early 400s BC Celtic expansions into Italy). Its root may be the Common Celtic *galno, meaning "power" or "strength". 
Again and again we see the words 'might be' and 'may be' - where is the proof ? - where is the 'Beef'. 'Celt' was a word that was invented in 1829. Come up with some evidence!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.67.99 (talk • contribs) 
::The word 'Celt' was not invented in 1829.  It was borrowed from the ancient Greek. Gabhala 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the word slave as we know it came into English from Latin, where it was derived from Slav.  I think my point is clear.  Gabhala 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is not saying that Deutschland was called Welschland. Reread it more carefully. FilipeS 11:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it has no administrative status, the area around Bodensee is still -to this day- sometimes referred to as Welschland.  As for no-one knowing who the Celts were, that is utterly false - the Celtic culture began in what is now Austria and Bavaria in Germany.  What is unclear is how far and to what extent this culture spread, and to what degree it was adopted in some of the fringe areas of what is broadly considered to have been Celtic Europe. Gabhala 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic Names - another laughing stock for this article 

message: In this ection I have removed the statement that Germanic people were 'ultimately of Celtic origin.' Bull. Prove it.
Removal of 
In the Middle Ages certain districts of what is now Germany were known as Welschland as opposed to Deutschland, and the word is cognate with Vlach (see: Etymology of Vlach) and Walloon as well as with the "-wall" in "Cornwall".  
Pure POV - citation needed.
:The origins of "Welsh" and similar cognates in other Germanic languages are well attested in works dealing with the relevant periods/regions/peoples. Try reading rather than just demanding citations and proof and accusing POV on issues you plainly know nothing about. siarach 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name 'Welsh'