Talk:Celts

Identity Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P-Celts and Q-Celts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inconsistancies in article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update Celtic Culture

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

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

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

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

Article needs to be bought.

Still here are some parts of the text:

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

Here is part of the text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main point of this article is wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)