Talk:Celts/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Is John T. Koch's assertion that Tartessian is Celtic really "largely rejected by the academic community" ?

John Koch has comprehensively answered all the review point raised to his proposal that Tartessian is a Celtic language in the following paper:

https://www.academia.edu/6408079/On_the_Debate_over_the_Classification_of_the_Language_of_the_South-Western_SW_Inscriptions_also_known_as_Tartessian

He has gained recognition of his proposal from noted linguist Eric P. Hamp, whose Indo-European trees are widely used by other linguists, and from the widely respected linguist who runs the Linguist List MultiTree linguists' reference site (used widely across the Wikipedia for language pages infoboxes):

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp239_indo_european_languages.pdf http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/txr

Now, how can we justify the bald statement that Koch's proposal that the Tartessian language is a Celtic language is "largely rejected by the academic community" ? Please do let us know.Jembana (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Previously to this "Distinguished researchers including Correa, Untermann, Villar, Ballester, Jordán, Almagro-Gorbea, Lorrio, Mederos and Torres, Guerra and Kaufman have recognized Indo-European names in the South-western (SW) inscriptions. Most of these names have Celtic comparanda, often specifically Hispano-Celtic":

https://www.academia.edu/6481185/THE_TARTESSIAN_EPIGRAPHIC_FORMULA_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_THE_MEDELLIN_NECROPOLIS

Now, I ask you, how can it be maintained that John T. Koch's assertion that Tartessian is Celtic really been "largely rejected by the academic community" if there were only such a few dissenting voices against the above list of respected academics in this field of research supporting Koch's assertion and the review points raised have been so comprehensively answered ? Do let us know.Jembana (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that "rejected" is the wrong term - my impression is that, while there are some scholars who have reacted very negatively towards the hypothesis (such as Joseph Eska), on average there is more of a healthy skepticism on this topic among other Celticists - more of a "let's wait to see more evidence" attitude than one of outright rejection.Cagwinn (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for mentioning Joseph Eska's review points - these have been comprehensively answered in a recent 2014 paper by Professor Koch that can be read here:

https://www.academia.edu/6408107/On_the_Debate_over_the_Classification_of_the_Language_of_the_South-Western_SW_Inscriptions_also_known_as_Tartessian

As far as "other Celticists" go, the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago, Eric P. Hamp, who is a highly respected Celticist, has definitely classified Tartessian as a Celtic language alongside Celtiberian, Gaulish, etc. No doubt about it and his views have already been noted and used by the respected linguist at Linguist List MultiTree to classify Tartessian as Celtic. Hamp's 2013 IE tree will be used further as further publications are revised or come out on this subject. Earlier in 2011, in a major publication with another noted Palaeo-Hispanicist,Blanca María Prósper,, Professor Francisco Villar Liebana, classified Tartessian as Celtic:

Villar, F. & B. Ma. Prósper, C. Jordán, & Ma. Pilar Fernández Álvarez 2011 Lenguas, genes y culturas en la prehistoria de Europa y Asia suroccidental. ediciones Universidad de Salamanca,Salamanca. p. 100. ISBN 978-84-7800-135-4:

http://www.eusal.es/index.php?page=shop.product_details&product_id=16503&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=78

On page 100 of Villar et all. 2011 one can find the first major recognition of Koch's interpretation that it is a Celtic language (the authors are major Palaeohispanic language researchers):

"Más reciemente J. T. Koch ha proporcionado argumentos lingüísticos de mayor enjundia en favor de la tesis de la filiación celta, de manera que en la actualidad conviene retirar, al menos provisionalmente la lengua de las inscripciones del suroeste como miembro del listado no indoeuropeo."

Translated into English this becomes "More recently J T Koch's linguistic arguments provided more substance in favor of a Celtic affiliation for [Tartessian], so today, at least for the language of the Southwest inscriptions, [Tartessian] should be removed from the list of non-Indo-European languages".

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Villar_Li%C3%A9bana

I can go on with the others mentioned if this doesn't convince you. That Tartessian is Celtic is nothing like a "tentative proposal" now.Jembana (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been corresponding with Koch for many years now and have already read his 2014 paper linked above (in fact, I am even kindly mentioned in it - thanks, John!). I lean towards accepting the Celticity of Tartessian, but I do believe (like Koch himself does!) that much more research needs to be conducted and that there is still a lot to learn about the language. It is definitely still in the tentative proposal stage. Cagwinn (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

:) Yes, I see your contribution: "a different derivation of naŕkeentii, &c., follows suggestions made independently by Christopher Gwinn and Octavià Alexandre". Good on you for helping with the translation for such a recurrent term in the corpus.Jembana (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Koch says in conclusion:

I do not know what direction future discoveries and scholarship will take. In the long run, the voices now being heard will fall silent and the publications now discussed be forgotten. But the evidence will still be there. It is not hard to see that the SW corpus contains Celtic names. It is not hard to see that the matrix language contains forms that look like Indo-European verbs and preverbs tee, ro, and ar. Combined, these categories make up more than half the corpus and are consistent with a particular classification. Working independently, many researchers have noticed that [Arganthonios] looks Celtic, and so on. Therefore, the theory that the language of the SW inscriptions is Celtic will probably have a future whatever turn the current debate takes. Given what capable and knowledgeable philologists have achieved so far with the non-Indo-European and two-language theories, building a satisfactory explanation from either of these might be impossible.Jembana (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, that sounds rather more definite than a "tentative proposal" to me - see bolded sentence. Given the top-level support for the theory he has gained from such heavy-weights as Eric P. Hamp and the other academics mentioned and that Hamp's 2012 IE tree has already been used by a respected linguistic institution, I propose that we should add it back to the lede as the earliest attested Celtic language.Jembana (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, there seems to be quite a lot of hedging from Koch in the passage quoted. If the best the proposer of the theory can say is that he thinks it "will probably have a future", that sounds pretty tentative to me. The other scholars you quote make it appear that the theory is gaining support, but you haven't quoted any of its opponents, so I don't think you've shown a scholarly consensus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You just took part of one sentence and isolated and called that "the best he can say". No, if you read it all, that is not the best he can say. He advances numerous pieces of evidence demonstrating why he thinks it will have a future, he says probably as any cautious scholar would because obviously no one claims to know the future for certain. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We're back to the old bullshit, an inability to accept that the academic community hasn't accepted this POV, so I deleted the passage as not worth the effort. It's well beyond the coverage justified by WEIGHT anyway. Putting details in a peripheral articles that haven't been accepted in the main article – that just won't fly.

I'd love to see Hamp's determination that Tartessian is Celtic. Last I heard, it was wishful thinking among some editors here, and since we're still trotting out garbage sources like MultiTree, I suspect there still isn't any such argument. — kwami (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hamp's revised tree (from Hamp, E. P. [with D. Q. Adams], The Expansion of the Indo-European Languages: An Indo-Europeanist’s Evolving View, Sino-Platonic Papers 239, 2013, Philadelphia, Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania) is right there on the second page of Koch's recent article cited above ("On the Debate over the Classification of the Language of the South-Western SW Inscriptions also known as Tartessian"...did you even read it?). Hamp's paper is online here; aside from the tree itself, there is the following quote from the paper: "Hamp holds firmly to the concept of an Indo-European Prehellenic (perhaps to be clustered with other largely unknown languages such as Tartessian)." Cagwinn (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I knew that because I did read it! Hamp's revised tree, right there on page two, now it's simply a matter of getting some ppl to accept what is before their eyes which can be notoriously tricky! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we really have to go through all of this again? First of all, the article claims to have been written by Hamp, but it's clearly written by someone else, which is not a promising start. Second, yes, Tartessian is within Celtic in the tree. But he also "considers Pictish to be non-Indo-European". Should we now remove Pictish from Celtic, because that's what Hamp said? Or do we only use him as a source when we agree with him? Third, nowhere does he present any evidence, or evaluate any claims, or review anyone's work on the subject. The only thing actually said is, in an area of current controversy, Hamp holds firmly to the concept of an Indo-European Prehellenic (perhaps to be clustered with other largely unknown languages such as Tartessian). Now, "Prehellenic" is a branch of the "Eastern Node", together with Cimmerian, Albanian, Thracian, and Balto-Slavic. That means that Hamp thinks that Tartessian may be closer to Albanian and Slavic than it is to Celtic. How do we then conclude that Hamp agrees with Koch that Tartessian is Celtic? Lastly, this published in Sino-Platonic Papers. It's a journal specifically for things you can't get published anywhere else. If you can't get your idea published in a peer-reviewed journal, that suggests that it might not stand up well to peer review, which is directly relevant to the question of whether the academic community accepts the idea.

So, in a paper that evidently couldn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal, an anonymous author attributes two contradictory views about Tartessian to Hamp. That's not much to go on, and doesn't meet the most basic requirements of RS. — kwami (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me you are not serious. I really question your authority to edit articles on this subject now - you seem rather ignorant of it. I may personally disagree with Hamp on Pictish (and I'd hazard to guess that quite a large number of scholars still regard Pictish as non-Indo-European), but he is a highly respected linguist (for very good reasons!); his views on this matter hold a lot of weight and influence. I seriously doubt that a scholar of his stature has any problems getting articles published.Cagwinn (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Present the paper where Hamp evaluates the evidence and concludes that Tartessian is Celtic. A paper that says Hamp may (or may not) believe that Tartessian may be most closely related to Albanian cannot be used as evidence that it's Celtic. That's so elementary that I'm perplexed that we need to discuss it again, and even more that I need to explain it twice. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) Are you obtuse, or are you just trolling us? That IS the paper - it is a revision of a language tree that Hamp originally published in 1989. After seeing the evidence presented by Koch, et al, he has reassigned Tartessian to the Celtic branch. You clearly have no business editing articles on Celtic linguistics and I think that future edits of yours should be considered vandalism. Cagwinn (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, you wrote: "But he also "considers Pictish to be non-Indo-European". Should we now remove Pictish from Celtic, because that's what Hamp said? Or do we only use him as a source when we agree with him?" That is a fallacious and illogical red herring argument, if you are attempting to use that to argue that Hamp's published views on Tartessian may NOT be mentioned on Celts because a wikipedia editor disagrees with them and has rebutted them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Once scholar's opinion is not definitive, and in this case the scholar in question appears to have two different opinions ascribed to him. Until clearer evidence is presented, we cannot choose between these two opinions simply on the basis of which one we agree with. On the evidence so far presented, the best we can say on the "Tartessian is Celtic" hypothesis is that it has been put forward, tentatively, and has some support but not a consensus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are asserting that Douglas Q. Adams fabricated that "revised 2012 Hamp chart" in Hamp's name, or what? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the classic "are you calling me a liar?" to add to your growing collection of abusive argumentation techniques. I knew I'd regret engaging with you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you think you could engage in me without twisting my words around? I didn't ask "are you calling me a liar" so this is just uncalled-for. You just avoided my question altogether. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your question, or rather ultimatum, has no relevance to anything I wrote. You simply attack the motives of anyone who doesn't accede to your demand for certainty on an issue where certainty does not exist. There is nothing of substance to engage with, and will not do so again. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen wikipedian editors go to some extreme lengths before to marginalize, discount or personally rebut published scholars they disagree with or don't like to accept, but this seems to be taking it to a new extreme! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to know is why the potential Celticity (or even just Indo-European-ness) of Tartessian has ticked-off so many people? Folks act is if they have a vested interest in Tartessian (a language that few people were even aware of until recently!!) remaining classified as non-IE/non-Celtic. What is Tartessian suddenly so important to you people? Cagwinn (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you've joined in the straw-manning and well-poisoning here. There are five editors on this thread. Not one of us has argued that Tartessian can't be Celtic and must be non-Indo-European. I've simply argued that the evidence presented doesn't amount to academic consensus, so the level of certainty Jembana was arguing for is not justified - pretty much what you did in your first comment on this thread. But frankly, you and Til are not reading what's written, you're arguing against things that haven't been said, mostly by attacking the character and motivation of the people who haven't said them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe this is more the issue: who are some of you people? Have you read the relevant books and papers? Do you have any kind of background in historical linguistics - specifically in Indo-European and Celtic languages - so that you can even understand them? Some of the comments I see here and on related threads are just embarrassing - just a whole lot of bluster from people who don't comprehend even half of what they are arguing over. Cagwinn (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments above have convinced me that your opinions are not worth the bother. You two are giving the idea of Tartessian being Celtic a bad name.

But of course you're correct: There's a grand anti-Celtic conspiracy going on here. It has something to do with world domination. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, you should take you ball and leave? This article and its talk page would be more than better for it.Cagwinn (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I do my best not to allow WP to be ruined by conspiracy-theorists. They don't like it over at the Bosnian Pyramid article either. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you think I am suggesting there is a conspiracy bolsters my case even further - you have no business editing this article - you are just making it worse.Cagwinn (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As with the last section, since this has been going on over a month, can someone suggest a better draft here? If not, this is likely to lead nowhere. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How about something like "Koch's proposal has some support (citation to Hamp) but is not universally accepted (citation to one of its critics)"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that there are Celtic-looking names attested in the Tartessian corpus. Nobody denies the possibility that these names, at least in part, are really of Celtic origin. However, this does not prove that Tartessian itself is Celtic. The evidence is simply too weak, and the response by the mainstream academic community outside Koch's circle of followers is therefore lukewarm at best. Celtologists as a whole remain unconvinced. This is the whole fringe circus all over again. If scholars say nothing, or utter no more than noncommittal pleasantries, that means they do not accept the proposal (even if they do not reject it outright, explicitly – the open-ended nature of the scientific endeavour means no such decision is final, anyway). It means that for the time being, they will continue to treat Tartessian as unclassified and quite probably non-Indo-European like Iberian and Aquitanian. Qui tacet consentire videtur is a principle that simply does not apply in academia. Whether wildly implausible crackpot theories or mildly implausible fringe hypotheses, or questionable but not a priori impossible proposals as here, there is no need to spill ink before compelling evidence appears. Given that Koch is an otherwise respected Celtologist, it appears that he is given the benefit of the doubt even if his colleagues are mostly sceptical, and there is additional reason to stay cautious and play it cool and subdued because nobody wishes to publicly snub a serious scholar with a devoted following. Unlike Alinei, who engages in classic pseudoscience, Koch does not stray too far and still plays by the rules. There are simply degrees of unorthodoxy, and this degree is still healthy in principle. That said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I think it's possible to test the method by applying it to inscriptions that are similar in typological structure but known to be non-Celtic in language.

As for Hamp's trees, I see no reason to treat them as more than personal notes, hardly better than my own scribblings on Wikipedia user subpages. If Hamp wishes to officially endorse the classification of Tartessian as Celtic, he must choose different ways to do so; personal notes are not appropriate sources for something like this anyway and it strikes me as a tad desperate to resort to such a weaksauce source. I wouldn't dismiss the Sino-Platonic Papers as bunk wholesale, but people have attempted to use it a source for alleged genetic connections between Mayan and Sinitic on Wikipedia before, and I've found a paper comparing Germanic and Tai too, so we should be wary as Adams' peer review doesn't seem particularly rigorous. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You addressed my main concern: Nowhere do we have a citation where Hamp says Tartessian is Celtic. The Sino-Platonic paper even says that Hamp says it's *not* Celtic, so what do we do with that? All I've ever asked is that we get an actual citation of Hamp before making allegations as to what Hamp believes. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, Kwami, but are you blind? It's right there on page 8 of Hamp's paper - Tartessian has been added by him to the Celtic tree. Nowhere does Hamp say it's not Celtic...Adams simply comments that Hamp believes Prehellenic (which he links with Proto-Germanic on his tree) is "perhaps to be clustered with other largely unknown languages such as Tartessian" (emphasis mine). I don't think I have witnessed someone with such an acute case of denial in ages, Kwami. Cagwinn (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Well, first of all, it's Adams' paper, not Hamp's, so Adams is all we have to go on, isn't he? I've explained this, quite clearly, several times; if you still don't understand, I don't know what more I can do. But before you start adding controversial claims to the article, you need RS's for those claims – such as, say, a paper on the subject by Hamp, if you can find one. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, you are getting more and more unhinged! The paper is Hamp's, with comments by Adams. Right on the cover it reads: "The Expansion of the Indo-European Languages: An Indo-Europeanist’s Evolving View" by Eric P. Hamp with annotation and comments by Douglas Q. Adams. Cagwinn (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it not be more accurate to say that the paper is clearly Hamp's, the chart is clearly Hamp's, Hamp's chart clearly labels Tartessian as Celtic, several sources in the field have made note of this, yet it is all being over ruled and denied by wikipedia editor who claim self-authority to dictate what sources we may or may not use? And really, just because someone here has an ultra high-handed view of Sino-Platonic journal or any other source that controverts his own views, how exactly relevant is that? Are we all expected to share and endorse your high-handed view of this source? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a RS, given how light Adams is on peer review, to put it mildly. That's why we don't use it on Tartessian language, either. If you disagree, take the issue to WP:RSN.

Neither is it Hamp's paper. Hamp can speak for himself, should he wish so; he doesn't need Adams (whose name is on the actual paper) to publish his personal notes if he wishes to endorse a particular view.

Moreover, Adams acknowledges in the preface that Hamp's subgrouping is innovative in some aspects. Hence, unconventional and far removed from any kind of consensus. Meaning Hamp's view is distinctly at odds with the mainstream of the academic community. Hamp does not reference anything, presents no arguments, enumerates no evidence, provides no comment, nothing. His views might be completely speculative and based on personal intuition. Personal notes are not a RS, and the paper is not a textbook. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the innovative part. If this is Hamp's view, then so be it. But for all we know it's doodlings that he later decided against. You nailed it on the head: Hamp is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If he published an editorial somewhere, or a review, or even comments on his personal website, st to the effect that "Koch has convincingly shown that Tartessian is a Celtic language", then I would have no problem with us saying that Hamp supports Koch's conclusions. Though of course that should be worked out on the Tartessian article, not with an attempt to sneak it through the back door in a peripherally related article like this one. — kwami (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, you are yet again proving that you not only have a simplistic view of Hamp's article, but also that you did little more than skim Koch's article (and I seriously doubt you even understood a fraction of what you did read). Koch provides another reference from Hamp on page 3 (did you even make it that far??): "In the 2012 tree Tartessian has been added as a Celtic language.⁶" ["N. 6. This conclusion is anticipated in Hamp 2012, 132 N 4."] (The reference, which is found at the end of the article - so it's unlikely you saw it - is: Hamp, E. P. 2012 ‘Gaulish Ordinals and their History’, Études Celtiques 38.131–5; I am sure it's way too much to ask for you to seek out this article and then report back to us).Cagwinn (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're complaining that I haven't done your work for you? Seriously? If "Gaulish Ordinals and their History" supports your claim, then cite it. Come on, this is highschool-level stuff. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to work at a high-school level, then I'm wasting my time here. Demonstrate the claim adequately at the language article, just as anyone else would be expected to do, and only then add it to other articles. Anything else will be reverted as fringe POV-pushing. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight...you gnash your teeth and whine "before you start adding controversial claims to the article, you need RS's for those claims – such as, say, a paper on the subject by Hamp, if you can find one"...so I provide just such a reference (cited by Koch in support of his contention that Hamp now assigns Tartessian to the Celtic tree) and you start crying like a spoiled child that this is still not good enough? I guess I need to remind you that I AM NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS HERE!!!! I am simply demanding that Koch's position on Tartessian be treated fairly and that it should be acknowledged in relevant Wikipedia articles that there is a growing list of scholars who now at least accept the possibility of the Celticity of Tartessian. Opposing me on this are a pack of neck-bearded, bureaucratic Wikipedians who possess no specialist knowledge of Celtic historical linguistics, yet still feel that they have the authority to suppress an innovative hypothesis such as this. I encourage others to look at Kwami's contributions on Wikipedia - what we have here is a professional Wikipedian, who apparently has enough free time to make 227 edits to articles on a variety of subjects IN A SINGLE DAY; Kwami is also embroiled in all sorts of controversy on Wikipedia and has racked up enemies due to his controversial editing/commenting style(as can be seen on Administrators noticeboard/Incidents). People like Kwami make Wikipedia worse, not better - they are only interested in playing little power-trip games on here and not spreading knowledge. Cagwinn (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The attitudes and condescension here is getting out of control. Cagwinn you, especially, should (re-)read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

After re-reading this whole sub-section, I think maybe you should peruse WP:No personal attacks as well.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, another professional Wikipedian chimes in - thanks for the insightful commentary.Cagwinn (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just read the "paper" in question... has this really generated so much discussion? What a crock. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Celtic literature

On the page headed "Celts", in the 3rd paragraph it says something to the effect that Celtic literary tradition begins with Old Irish texts in the 8th century. This is not true. I have in front of me a copy of the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse, showing several Welsh poems dating from the 6th century.

Since Welsh is a Celtic language, the sentence should read something like: "Recorded Celtic literature begins with 6th- Century Welsh poets such as Aneirin and Taliesin, and Old Irish texts "......etc. Hoffoholi (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)^[1]

Well, this is a tricky subject. While it is certainly possible that some Welsh poetry was originally composed in the 6th century, we don't have any secure proof of this, as the extant poems are only found in much later manuscripts and have mostly been updated to later orthographies by scribes of the Middle Welsh period (c. 12th through 14th century AD). I don't know where that 8th century date comes from in regards to Old Irish - the earliest recorded Irish poetry dates to the 6th century AD. Cagwinn (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, per Early Irish literature and my recollection of books - again the manuscripts are later (9th century on) than the works are thought to be (c. 600 on). Many also think that the saga cycles have elements deriving from considerably earlier than the 6th century, though the manuscripts are much later. But the section clearly needs sorting. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of this article should be rewritten

The first two papragraphs of this article make some sweeping claims that are not supported by much evidence nor by some of the references.

For example, John Koch (given as reference [1]) does not say that the Celts 'were an ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture,[1]'.

Also Nora Chadwick (given as reference 2) does not say 'The earliest archaeological culture that may justifiably be considered Proto-Celtic is the Late Bronze Age Urnfield culture of Central Europe, which flourished from around 1200 BC.[2]'

As for the claim 'Their fully Celtic[2] descendants in central Europe were the people of the Iron Age Hallstatt culture (c. 800–450 BC) named for the rich grave finds in Hallstatt, Austria.[3]' Reference 3 is for a work by Barry Cunliffe but as I understand it, he no longer supports the 'Celtic Halstatt' thesis.

The article follows on with 'By the later La Tène period (c. 450 BC up to the Roman conquest), this Celtic culture had expanded by diffusion or migration to the British Isles (Insular Celts), France and The Low Countries (Gauls), Bohemia, Poland and much of Central Europe' In the context of this article, this 'expansion' started in the Halstatt region. However there is no evidence that Celtic Languages came from this region or were even commonly spoken there.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll pick up on one of your points above because I have a copy of Nora Kershaw Chadwick's 'The Celts' 1970. On page 28, it says: "With the emergence of the Urnfield culture of Central Europe, there appear a people whom some scholars regard as being 'proto-Celtic', in that they may have spoken, as is suggested by the evidence of place-names, an early form of Celtic. Apart from the influence of some immigrants from the east during the early first millennium B.C., there is little to distinguish the Urnfield people from their descendants of the Hallstatt culture, other than the latter's use of iron. Again it would seem that the thread of continuity is strong.". This chapter was written by noted British pre-historian John Xavier Willington Patrick Corcoran:

http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095638681

Venceslas Kruta noted that the earliest Urnfield language was probably an early form of Celtic because of cultural continuity considerations with the development of the Canegrate->Golasecca culture speaking one of the earliest attested Celtic languages Lepontic. He also notes other earlier attested Celtic fragments from over the Alps. These people kept contact via intense and well-documented trade with Hallstatt and their language is considered by Joe Eska and Eric P. Hamp to be closely related to the Gaulish language. John T. Koch recently in 2013 in the book he edited with Barry Cunliffe called "Celts from the West 2" says that the early Urnfield cultural spread (which was vast both by land and sea - we are only now realising how vast the influence of this culture was across Europe and into the Mediterranean basin) is the "simplest remedy to the problem of Celtogenesis" with expert metalworker and warrior elites influencing other cultures to the extent of causing language shift.Jembana (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more accurate for this article to say: "some scholars have speculated that the Celtic languages developed within the Urnfield culture of Central Europe and that these languages migrated in association with that culture, although it is known that some formerly Celtic-speaking areas of Europe lie outside the Urnfield region"195.194.15.1 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The wording you propose is too weak given that gain in knowledge since 1970 - see Kruta on Lepontic for instance as summarised above by me. The degree to which the Urnfield culture inter-meshed with the Atlantic Bronze Age culture is still being uncovered archaelogically - see Brandherm's advances in understanding on this in the SW Iberian peninsula for instance. We may be dealing with a network of communication established much earlier in the Beaker period along which Urnfield speech was propagated by elite status contact. You can't get more Beaker culture than Ross Island in Killarney - it became a major node due to the hugely rich copper mine there. The North Alpine Urnfields developed out of a Beaker base too.Jembana (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What I would say is that informed speculation is still speculation. Given the geographic spread of the Urnfield culture there probably would have been some cross-over with people speaking early forms of the Celtic languages. However, whether there was an Urnfield language would seem to be unprovable either way. I think there would be no problem in discussing these ideas in the article but I think the introduction to the article needs to differentiate clearly between what is known and what is not. What is known is that a family of languages now called Celtic were present in parts of Western Europe by around 550 BC but ideas about how they developed and where they came from are speculation. Indeed, it is possible to chart how different ideas about the 'Celtic Heartland' have been proposed and rejected over the years and it seems most likely that some questions will never be answered definitively193.105.48.20 (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really, Kruta has a well-argued case based on the tie-up of linguistic attestation (Lepontic language and other Celtic fragments such as epigraphic Ligurian in inscriptions using the Etruscan alphabet and Celtic influence embedded in the Italic Venetic inscriptions) and archaeological continuity from the Urnfield migrations over the Alps into southern Swtizerland and northern Italy. Several modern Celticists agree with this based on reviewing the same or similar evidence.Jembana (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting discussion on a history forum that is quite relevant to this subject: http://historum.com/ancient-history/36218-hallstatt-la-tene-model-definitely-out.html 195.194.15.1 (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the opening of this article is a re-hashing of the "Out of Hallstatt" theory of Celtic expansion which has been largely discarded. The fact is there is not enough evidence to say how and where the Celtic Languages developed from earlier languages. Archeological evidence without inscriptions is not much use. And it should be noted there has usually been a strong 'fantasy' element in the speculations regarding this subject - the whole Halstatt theory was pushed by French nationalists at a time when they were threatened by Prussia. It was very gratifying to them to claim that the Celts (ie Gauls) at one time dominated the Germans. 193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also notable that the work by John Koch in reference [4], which in this article used to support the 'Out of Hallstatt' theory of 'Celtic' expansion, in fact questions that theory. His is more of an 'Out of Iberia' type of theory. It's interesting how the whole subject changes over time - in a way, it has come full circle back to the Keltoi of Herodotus who lived on the far west of Europe, 'Beyond the Pillars of Hercules' (straits of Gibraltar) 193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this has been going on over a month, can someone suggest a better draft here? If not, this is likely to lead nowhere. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The intro is fine the way it is. Sure enough, identifying prehistoric cultures with specific reconstructed languages is an uncertain and speculative business, keeping in mind the dearth of evidence, but suggestions simply vary in plausibility. Just like the Anatolian family of hypotheses of Indo-European origins, the "Celtic from the West" ideas are not a priori impossible, but simply more problematical, less plausible/probable and thus ultimately simply weaker than their mainstream rival hypotheses, the Kurgan and "Out of Hallstatt" models respectively, which has prevented mainstream acceptance of the newer alternative hypotheses. Whatever evidence there is (and there is not much, although newer genetic approaches – especially involving ancient DNA – are promising additions in attempts to trace prehistoric migrations, if used prudently and circumspectly) still appears to favour the traditional approaches. There are a lot of revisionism attempts going on, trying to argue for a greater antiquity of various proto-languages than traditionally assumed, fueled by the fact that archaeology and synchronic genetics tend to show and overestimate continuity and to miss prehistoric migrations although parallels from known history suggest that a real lot of migration must have gone on in the prehistorical period too, which renders these revisionism attempts short-sighted and ultimately unconvincing. Arguments from reconstructed lexicon (linguistic palaeontology), prehistoric language contacts (loanwords!), geographical "centres of gravity", similarity of attested daughter languages among themselves and with the reconstructed ancestor, which are traditionally exploited and favour the traditional explanations, are not excessively strong, only circumstantial evidence; however, in this field, the much lower standards of proof than possible in other disciplines and subfields are simply a fact of life. There's no need to throw your hands up and be totally agnostic; one should simply be realistic and honest about the level of certainty that can be achieved here. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Hallstatt and Kurgan will remain top dogs as long as their challengers aren't going to up their game considerably. Archaeologists should not pretend that – only because of the greater scientific cachet of their fields – their opinions are inherently superior to those of traditional historical linguists. And those who claim that the challengers have managed to oust the alpha males (despite the underdogs being every bit as wimpy as the kingpins, and rather more so) simply need better sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What I would say is that the introduction to the article is probably the most important section - many readers will not get any further than that. It seems important to concentrate on what can be reliably asserted about the subject rather than embark on speculation (even well informed speculation). For example, look at the opening sentence:

'The Celts (/ˈkɛlts/, occasionally /ˈsɛlts/, see pronunciation of Celtic) or Kelts were an ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture,[1] although the relationship between the ethnic, linguistic and cultural elements remains uncertain and controversial.'

There are a number of obvious problems with this opening. For example, although John Koch's 'Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia' is used as a reference to support this sentence, in fact as far as I can see, he doesn't say that there was an ethnic group called the Celts who had a similar culture. If anything his work points to 'the Celts' being a multicultural, multiethnic mixture of people, not necessarily closely related by shared ancestry, linked by speaking languages which descended from a earlier common language. Of course, it is then a moot point as to how useful it is to have a general name (The Celts) for such a mixed group of people. There are a number of historians who genrally avoid the term when speaking about the Iron Age folk of Britain and Ireland, for example, because they don't find it a useful concept195.194.15.1 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was more of a useful concept to peoples living at the time, when they might actually encounter groups called 'Celts' (where the name came from) and the territory of Celtica. However it would be fair to note that these are not considered desirable or useful concepts to modern ways of thinking according to some schools. 71.246.155.118 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing that John Koch draws attention to is the difference between how the academics view the subject and the popular or non-specialist view. There does seem to be an emotional need for some people to claim as large as possible a territory for 'The Celts' and to extend the time period during which 'The Celts' existed as far back in time as possible even if this can only be done by building speculation on speculation. At the same time, such people also wish to claim that 'The Celts' were a cohesive enough group so that it is possible to generalise about them (eg. 'the Celts did this' or 'the Celts believed that' etc.). Of course these two tendencies run against each other as the wider the geographic area and time span considered, the less alike are the people under consideration. It is clear that at any time period, there were big differences in the way the peoples of Western Europe (including 'The Celts') lived their lives. It is also clear that cultural changes often came gradually, moving across Europe, and not necessarily linked with a particular language group. The definition of 'The Celts' at the beginning of the article is the sort of view popular in the 19th century but doesn't hold up to scrutiny if it also is claimed that 'The Celts' lived in what is now Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Britain, Ireland, Italy and several other places too.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why, out of all the other ancient ethnicities of Europe are Celts subjected to this sort of sophistic navel gazing, as typified by your post? I those who seek to deconstruct the Celts out of existence are much more worrisome than those who might tend to overgeneralize about the Celts. Cagwinn (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, in my opinion, the most important section of an article is the introduction. In the case of this article, it starts with a completely unsupported statement which is contradicted by the attached reference and then moves on to some historical speculation for which there is no solid evidence whatsoever. I have no objection to the speculation in itself but I don't think it should be in the introduction. It's probably best to stick to uncontroversial statements in the introduction that are based on evidence and put in the speculation later. 193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Cagwin's assertion that 'the Celts' represented an "ancient ethnicity" would also seem a controversial view - particularly if you accept the view that 'The Celts' lived both facing the Atlantic and on the shores of the Black Sea. I really wonder what those two groups had in common? These days it's generally assumed that an 'ethnic group' is largely based on self-identification. Of course it is possible for modern people to self-identify as a particular group and people did so in the past. The question here then is what ancient people self-identified as 'Celts'? According to Julius Caesar, part of the population of Gaul did. Presumably the descendants of these ancient Celts are still in the area - now proud Frenchmen and Frenchwomen rather than modern Celts. Another question is: does it serve any constructive purpose to use the term 'Celt' more widely for peoples of the Iron Age and Roman Era. This is an area of present controversy. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We know there was a country before Caesar called "Celtica" that extended into what is now southern Germany. We know that the ones who went into Iberia were called by everyone including themselves "Celtiberi". We know the Greek version of "Celti" was "Galatai" and that these same people also invaded Asia Minor, and apparently Sarmatia around the same time (3rd c. BC). We know that the peoples of Britain were at the time considered to be kindred and speaking a language known to be related to Gaulish. These are all the facts that have been known for centuries and that is part of what this article explains. 71.127.134.189 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why this subject brings out all the arch-skeptics (bigotry, perhaps? Pure ignorance?), but by even the loosest definition of the term, the ancient tribes that modern linguists and historians have identified as Celtic most certainly can be classified as members of an ethnic group - even if they only shared common linguistic roots (though many certainly shared more than this).Cagwinn (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could provide some references of works by linguists and historians that identify the ancient Celts as an ethnic group? Or as an 'ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture'? I think that the archeologist Simon James would not agree http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/intro.htm at least for the whole geographic extent implied by this article. I note that another archeologist, David Miles, in his book 'The Tribes of Britain' states that the terms 'Keltoi' and 'Galli' were imposed by the Classical writers on a variety of people in Western Europe and he is very cautious about applying the term to ancient British people, preferring the use of 'Celtic' as a language group. Stephen Oppenheimer is happy to use the term 'Celts' for some of the people who lived in Gaul but not in Britain and some other places. It is clear that belonging to a language group does not imply belonging to an ethnic group. Even people who speak exactly the same language may have different ethnicities (consider the case of English, French and Spanish speakers, for example). 195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Simon James is a notorious Celtosceptic and not a very serious scholar, frankly. He writes poorly sourced pop junk. Oppenheimer is a geneticist who is dipping his toes in the pool of history and linguistics; I don't think his input is very relevant to this subject, especially since genes do not equal culture, language, or ethnicity. It's fine to point out that the ancient Britons do not seem to have called themselves Celts (as far as we know - we have no native testimony on this), but still they are classed by modern scholars as "Celts", because they have close linguistic ties to the Celtae of Gaul, close ethnic ties (since a number of Gaulish tribes seem to have emigrated to Britain prior to Caesar's invasion and several tribes still maintained cross-channel political ties because of this), and their culture (religion, social structure, etc.), while certainly show regional variance, is more alike than different.Cagwinn (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at his academic background, Simon James would appear to better qualified to write on the subject than any wiki editor in this site. His web page is well written and balanced in its views. There is nothing wrong in being sceptical of conventional opinion - there would be little progress in knowledge if people are discouraged from putting their own point of view. What is obvious is the term 'Celt' (like the original 'Keltoi') is a label which is applied to a range of people in the ancient world. One question is how useful a concept it is to have a general 'catch-all' term? I think the answer is the general term is only useful when there is little detailed information about the people one is writing about. If more information that is available then it is a less useful term. For example, it would be very confusing to write about the post-Roman history of Britain in terms of 'Celts' and 'Germans'. It makes much more sense if we use terms such as 'Romano-British, British, Picts, Scots, Angles, Saxons, Vikings etc. In other words, over use of the term 'Celt' may obscure meaning rather than illuminate, especially if it leads to the production of a 'composite Celt' who has attributes taken from a very large geographic area. 193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I note that on page 89 of Koch's encyclopedia it states that the ancient Celts should not be regarded as an ethnic group whilst on page 1447 it is stated that the Forth constituted an 'ethnic boundary' between the Britons and the Picts (ie between different Celtic people). So I don't think this work can be used to support the first sentence of this article.193.105.48.21 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Celts Are Certainly Indo-European?

The hypothesis of connection between early Celtic peoples and Indo-Europeans are too weak. Is that true the considering Celts an "Indo-european"? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? "Indo-Europeans" isn't a race. It's a term for speakers of a group of languages. Celtic is universally identified as a member of that group. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes sources will get sloppy and say such-and-such people are Indo-European, but luckily we don't fall into that trap. Not in this article, at least. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, If we can see to diffrence between languages and Etnicity fine. And I agree with kwami. Scythians one of them. They languange even not certain but some sources(?) quickly considering them an Indo-european-Iraninan. Celts are not in the Indo-European peoples. We must be see the difference. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It can't be put any more plainly than Paul B said; Celtic is a core branch of the Indo-European language family. Indo-European is not a race. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I already know that but what can we do about Celts' etnicity? It's an Unknown stiation? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely unknown. The word and idea of 'ethnicity' comes from Greek ethnon, and the Celts certainly constituted an 'ethnon' in their own right, individuals would have regarded themselves as Celts, Gauls / Galatai or by the name of their specific tribe. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of them, maybe. Whether this included everyone speaking Celtic languages &/or using "Celtic" cultural patterns, styles of art etc is unknown, and probably unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to some writers (eg. the archeologist David Miles) the term Keltoi was probably applied by the ancient Greeks to various 'barbarians' in the North West of Europe without any particular culture in mind. The Romans then followed the Greeks with the similar word 'Celtae'. According to this theory, some of the people of Gaul may have started using it themselves after picking it up from the Romans as they started to dominate Gaul. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"According to some ignorant writers"...fixed that for you! Cagwinn (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

David Miles was the head of the Oxford Archaeological Unit before becoming Chief Archeologist at English Heritage. This makes him far more knowledgeable than any wiki editor who has contributed to this article.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have encountered many archaeologists - especially English ones - who are shockingly ignorant of even the basics of Celtic history and linguistics. I doubt that he knows more about the Celts than I do, no matter what university employs him.Cagwinn (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope so. It would be a sad day if the head of the Oxford Archaeological Unit was less knowledgeable than contributors to this article. But that doesn't help us to work out what point you are trying to make. Could you be a bit clearer? -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. For all you know, the head of the Oxford Archaeological Unit may be a contributor to this article. And in any case, being an archaeologist, even a senior one, does not make one automatically an expert on any and every subject that can be investigated using archeaology as a tool. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That had occurred to me. Which is why I picked my words specifically to ensure that what I said is true whether he is a contributor to this article or not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The point was the theory (as expounded by David Miles) that the 'Keltoi' were so named by the ancient Greeks. It may be that the term just meant 'Barbarians'. In this case barbarians that lived on the extreme west of the known world. There is no evidence that the people themselves thought of themselves as 'Keltoi' at this point in time (ie around the time of Herodotus). 193.105.48.20 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Only in later Greek sources did Keltoi devolve into a generic term for people from Western/Northern Europe; earlier on it specifically referred to Celtic speaking people of Gaul and Iberia. In face, there IS evidence that people thought of themselves as Keltoi/Celtae - not only does Caesar tell us that this is what the Gauls called themselves, we have ample examples of the root *celt- popping up in tribal and personal names. It is very clearly a native Celtic word and was in common use both in Gaul and Iberia.Cagwinn (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It may have been Malcolm Chapman in his book 'The Celts: The Construction of a Myth' that stated the idea that the 'Celts' were named by other people.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt it - Chapman is an idiot.Cagwinn (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Celts would not have been ethnically Indo-European, as they would not have had any concept of an Indo-European nation to consider themselves part of. As to whether they were ethnically Celtic, I doubt we can know. It would mean a common ethnic consciousness from Ireland to Anatolia, and I'd be surprised if we had any evidence either way. We speak of Celtic peoples as a unit because of commonalities in language and culture, but that isn't ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The near abandonment of invasion theories by archeologists has put paid to the idea that the Celts were an ethnic group. If you look at Koch's encyclopedia on Celtic Culture (hardly a hotbed of Celtoscepticism) it is stated plainly on page 89 that the Celts should not be regarded as an ethnic group. You could make an argument that smaller entities were ethnic groups (ie the Picts) as they would have shared much more in terms of language and culture and would have had an awareness of the differences between themselves and people to the south and west for example. Current theories state that Britain and Ireland were settled largely in the Mesolithic and Neolithic times and that the people spoke non-Indo-European languages. It's not really known when the Celtic Language group came to Britain and Ireland but it is clear that there are big problems with the previous Iron Age invasion theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nai1maker (talk • contribs) 10:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Every European in the Mesolithic and surely the overwhelming majority of Europeans in the Neolithic spoke non-Indo-European languages. Proto-Indo-European was most likely still evolving in the Neolithic and only began its major expansion during the Bronze Age. People on the Atlantic Fringe adopted Indo-European language and culture, which later evolved into what we now call Celtic language and culture. As for p. 89 of Koch's Celtic Culture encyclopedia, please note that this represents the opinion of Megaw and Megaw, the authors of this particular article on Celtic Art. This is what they say (emphasis mine): "The word Celtic is employed in this articlein the conventional sense represented by the Greek Κελτοί Keltoi and Roman Celtae or Celti, that is, a name given to pre-literate peoples in regions of western and central Europe in the last five centuries bc and commonly associated with the La Tène phase of the European Iron Age. Such a definition of Celtic is broadly consistent with that based on the Celtic languages used throughout this Encyclopedia; it should be noted that the native languages of Britain and Ireland (Ériu) were eminently Celtic linguistically, though their speakers were not called Keltoi, or the like, in the Greek and Roman accounts. While Celts by either of these definitions should not be considered to be a single ethnic group, as will be seen, the art described here may indeed have been used as a common mark of identity linking otherwise distinct groups." Cagwinn (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Celts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "celts in the northwest ..." to "Celts in the northwest..." under DISTRIBUTION/CONTINENTAL CELTS/IBERIA. So this is basically a type-o that requires an uppercase letter, "C", required because we are talking about an ethnic/cultural group. 88.160.68.16 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, well spotted. I think a lot of editors don't realise that a celt is an adze. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with map

Hi. This map shows the Roman domains and where Celtic, Germanic peoples lived. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, as a large part of Roman territory was in fact inhabited by Celts. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. The map is in a section about Romanisation. It illustrates territory under Roman control at the time. It makes no claim that Celts were not in Roman territory. Indeed that's the whole point of its use in the section. Obviously its function in the article is in tandem with the other maps. Paul B (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lets not confuse an ethnic population map with a political map. A population map would show the dominant ethnicities/culture groups of the area; whereas a political map shows what government has claim to the territory, regardless of the ethnicity of the residents. If the Romans ruled it, it was Roman territory, regardless of who lived there. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the map as used here, because there are other maps that describe the population-distribution of Celts, but the map as currently captioned doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind whether it's about population or political units. The green bits are labelled "i popoli Celti" and are presented as a single unit as if there was a Celtic empire of some sort. The white bit in northern Spain corresponds roughly to Cantabria, which is generally believed to have been Celtic, so it's unclear why it's not green. But then again, part of both it and the green bit would have been Aquitanian, an ethnic group who are generally believed to be Basques. They are mysteriously absent altogether. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. That is the whole point, Mediatech492, it can only be both a ethinc population map and a political map if it showed the ethinc polulation of the entire region, and then the Roman controlled area superimposed in a half-colour shading or some or other graphic device such as dots/ lines. Paul B, even if the legends "make up their minds", one would have to recolour the map and also fix the elements that you pointed out. Thanks. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem arises because of the poorly defined term 'Celt' when applied to ancient people. For some people it is effectively a racial term ie. Celts are people descended from Celts; for others it's a cultural or linguistic term so that when the 'Celts' start speaking Latin and take up Roman habits they are no longer Celts. The different definitions are somewhat entangled by circular arguments and the whole subject is heated and stirred by nationalism and politics.193.105.48.20 (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Video clip on the origins of Celts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible confusion of ancient and modern?

A recent edit by Krakkos would seem to have the effect of confusing modern and ancient Celts. At the start of the article it states: "This article is about the ancient and medieval peoples of Europe". I think the medieval period ended some time ago. In the main, modern Celts do not speak a Celtic language as a mother tongue. Some learn it as they would a foreign language. It is true that the majority do share a similar culture (ie. British/Irish culture with strong American influences amongst others) - however, they share that culture with English people as well but not with Bretons. I propose that this article be kept in the past Nai1maker (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted, thanks (a diff link to the edit would have been useful). Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

which vs that

@Urselius: "Celtic nations which retained [xyz]" implies that all Celtic nations retained xyz, whereas "Celtic nations that retained [xyz]" implies that some did, some did not. The fact the it says they are "the six" does not change anything:

1. These are the Celtic nations
2. Some Celtic nations retained xyz
3a. These are the ones that retained xyz
3b. These are the Celtic nations that retained xyz
4. The Celtic nations that retained xyz are six
5. These are the six Celtic nations that retained xyz

If you take 4. above, "The Celtic nations which retained xyz are six" you will clearly see that "which" implies that all Celtic nations retained xyz and that - as a secondary idea - that they are six. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, it is not true that "US English tends to restrict the use of 'which' unnecessarily" as you claim. If anything, quite the contrary. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"the six Celtic nations which [or that] retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period" is the full phrase. 'Which' or 'that' are both correct in respect to the restrictive relative clause they introduce. Only six Celtic nations are indicated, therefore six is the upper limit of reference, "all Celtic nations" is not an allowable reference or inference within the phrase. What is inferred is that there is the possibility of an external set, "all Celtic nations", of which the six are a subset. If a comma was introduced before 'which' the case would be different - this would imply that 6 was the number of "all Celtic nations" and that "all of them retained ..." I have seen US grammatical or style guides restricting which to use after a comma. This whole miasma was what I wanted to escape by rewording the phrase to avoid the use of either 'which' or 'that', but this was not appreciated by User:Garik. Personally, I cannot see any problem with "the six Celtic nations retaining significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period" Urselius (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Urselius, I would agree with you that removing "that"/ "which" would be the logical solution. I mean, if I in good faith straighten a painting that to me appears slightly out of alignment, fine, end of story. If it then attracts a crowd and a committee is formed to decide if the paining is straight or not, then, really it is not worth the point. After all, there is a whole article to work with, like finding references for the Origins section. And after that, millions of other articles. I've just reverted it now for the simple reason that the justification of the previous editor who reverted my edit is that this is a "Varieties of English" issue. It is not. At any rate, cheers, I enjoyed the article and I am moving on. By the way, I landed here trying to figure out why there are a number of pages that/which mention the Celtic "plastic style", always in inverted commas, with no explation as to the use of the inverted commas (which we don't do when refering to other styles) and the only defintion of the style is these few words. Thanks, Guys, good work, regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I somewhat misunderstood Urselius's edit summary, for which I apologise. I still think that "the six Celtic nations retaining significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period" is less good than "the six Celtic nations that retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period". The latter (with "that") seems to me to convey what we want to convey unambiguously: That there may be more than six Celtic nations, but that these six retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period. The other sentence ("the six Celtic nations retaining significant numbers...") is ok, but in principle ambiguous. It could be interpreted as meaning "These are only six Celtic nations, and this map shows them retaining speakers into the Early Modern period." Sure, that might be an unlikely interpretation in this case, but given the unambiguousness of the sentence with "that retained" I don't see why we wouldn't want to phrase it that way. As for "which" instead of "that": Certainly "which" is not exclusively used for non-restrictive relative clauses, so could be substituted for "that" here, and if we don't put a comma in before it, it'll probably be interpreted as restrictive (which is an acceptable use for "which"). But I just don't see what's wrong with "that retained". It's idiomatic and unambiguous. Or am I misunderstanding what this discussion is about. Do we want the relative clause to be non-restrictive? Garik (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But sure, this is a very minor issue, and I don't mean to be perpetuating it unnecessarily! Garik (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Either 'that' or 'which' could be used in this case - the meaning is unambiguous given the context. Perhaps what is more troubling is the mixing of the material culture of Hallstatt, 'Celtic Peoples' and Celtic Languages. Isn't 'diachronic' usually associated with the development of language with time? Here it is used to describe a spread of materials, people and language. There is very little evidence that Celtic Languages spread out from the Hallstatt region in the Iron Age193.105.48.20 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

More serious than this grammatical quibble is the wrong use of the term 'ethnolinguistic' in the first sentence of the article. Ethnolinguistics is a field of study. Whoever wrote this sentence presumably is saying that the Celts were an ethnic group. It should be said that the reference at the end of this phrase (John Koch's introduction to 'Celtic Culture') does not support that assertion. If you read the introduction, John Koch does not provide a definition of 'The Celts'. He doesn't describe them as an ethnic group or an ethnolinguistic group. He doesn't say they had a similar culture. He uses his introduction to define the scope of the encylopedia. The defining criterion of what is Celtic culture, according to Koch, is that it pertained to people who spoke a language belonging to the Celtic language family. I think it would be sensible therefore to remove the reference at the end of this phrase, rewrite the sentence and find a reference that really does provide a definition of 'The Celts'. 193.105.48.20 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The current start has been pretty stable. We used to have this, but I think we need to somehow address at the start the mix of linguistic, ethnic and cultural aspects in the concept of Celts that most people have. Is "tribal" in fact certain for all ancient "Celtic" contexts? It doesn't seem right for medieval periods. The next sentence "... in particular, whether the Iron Age inhabitants of Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy.[1][2][3][4]" is relatively recent and is surely not correct when a mainly linguistic definition is being used. That was introduced in these changes. I don't see that Koch for one should be used as a reference for that. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Now changed to "in particular, the ways in which the Iron Age inhabitants of Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy." Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

John Koch says in his introduction: 'The validity of applying the term 'Celtic' to any group of people or culture of any period has been questioned - especially in connection with the cultural history of Ireland and Britain'. Also many of these societies described in this were not 'tribal' by the time of the Romans let alone the medieval periods. It is also known that at any period of history there were great differences in material culture and the organisation of societies in the 'Celtic' area. Nai1maker (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Meaning that the usefulness of the term in non-linguistic contexts has been questioned, and especially in relation to the British Isles, where it is used over far longer periods (though he might have added Spain perhaps). In say Germany it does not get misused in the same way. That does not mean that, if the term is to be used at all (which it obviously is, to the regret of many), that anyone much thinks that the Iron Age inhabitants of the British Isles should not be called Celtic, while those of say France and Germany are. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For a full discussion of this issue by John Koch, see his article "Celts, Britons, and Gaels—Names, Peoples, and Identities", in: Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion 2002, NS 9 (2003) 41–56. Available to view/download at academia.edu Cagwinn (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the introduction should reflect that 'Celt' is a fairly modern label applied to a wide variety of ancient peoples. By the later Iron Age there is no way that these peoples could be called an ethnic group with a similar culture. To some degree, belonging to a language group tends to be used now as a defining criterion for who was a Celt, more so than material culture, ethnic origin or how their societies functioned. The use of the expression has changed over time. Its use in academic circles has been questioned on a number of grounds, for example: it tends to bring a lot of cultural baggage with it, some of which may obscure rather than reveal the history of Europe in the Iron Age.Nai1maker (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see improvements, but I think for major changes drafts should be suggested here, to avoid edit-warring. Of course "Celt" is not just a modern term, though the ways it has been used are. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll continue under a new heading as we've moved away from the original topic (which vs that)Nai1maker (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Celts at start of article

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

There are a number of problems with this phrase.

First is the wrong use of the word 'ethnolinguistics'. Ethnolinguistics is the study of how culture affects language. It's a branch of linguistics. In this article its use is a little ambiguous but I assume that what is meant is 'ethnic group which spoke closely related languages'. However, it is later stated that those languages are (naturally) Celtic. Therefore we could just put 'ethnic group' instead of 'ethnolinguistic group' without changing the meaning of the phrase. However, if we use 'Celt' to mean people who lived in most of Western Europe and a considerable part of Central and Eastern Europe and a little part of Eurasia, during the time span from the Iron Age to to the Middle Ages, then it is clear that we are not talking about a single ethnic group. Nor did all these peoples have a similar culture. Some groups lived in towns, some didn't. Some societies were literate to some degree, some were not. Some used artifacts of one design (eg La Tène) , others did not. Some stayed more or less in one place, others migrated. Some built hillforts, others did not. Some minted coins, others did not. etc. etc. Nor were they all tribal during this period. Finally, John Koch's introduction to the enyclopedia (reference 1) does not support the phrase it is attached to. He doesn't mention ethnic groups or ethnolinguistics groups or say anything about tribal societies having a similar culture.Nai1maker (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving from criticism for the present article to some suggestions, I'd like to suggest the following.:

'Celts' is the name used commonly, in modern times, for people who lived in much of Western and Central Europe in the Iron Age and Roman times. They are usually portrayed as tribal peoples and as the ancestors of today's modern Celts (ie the Irish, Scots, Welsh etc.), who live in nations or regions where today a proportion of people speak Celtic languages. Thus, now the most important defining criterion of who the ancient Celts were is that they spoke a 'Celtic language'. In the 19th century they were seen as a distinct cultural or ethnic group who emerged from Southern Germany and conquered large regions of Europe and even travelled as far as modern day Turkey. This viewpoint has largely been abandoned, however, and the whole concept of the usefulness of the term 'Celt' has been questioned in some circles. Nevertheless, the term is in common use and, indeed, still used in some academic works where it refers to a range of ancient peoples (sometimes poorly differentiated) eg. 'Celtae', Galli, Galatae, Boii, Celtiberi, etc. who were linked by speaking related languages and who sometimes displayed a similarity in their material or social culture. Nai1maker (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Although the the term 'Celt' is still used in scholarly works, advances in historical knowledge in the last few decades have led to a great difference between its use in academic and popular works. In the latter, 'Celts' are seen as an ethnic group or 'race' with a well defined societal structure (chieftains, warriors, druids, bards etc). Typically, in popular works, the 'warrior' nature of the ancient Celts is emphasized. In scholarly works, on the other hand, the term 'Celt' is not used to describe an ethnic group nor is maintained that 'Celts' had a common origin. However, there is no agreement between academics as to what defines a 'Celt', with some seeing similarities in culture across the 'Celtic World' whilst others (sometimes called Celtosceptics) believe the peoples had considerably less in common, or even very little at all.Nai1maker (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's much use as a lead frankly, but most would be useful lower down. Perhaps the 2nd section should be expanded to cover "Concept, etymology and terminology". References would be? Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Celts should not be treated differently than any other Indo-Europeans peoples. Whatever technical terminology is being used for the Greeks, Slavs, Germans, Balts, Indo-Iranians, Tocharians, Anatolians, Illyrians, Armenians, et al., should be equally applied to the Celts. Cagwinn (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement Johnbod, the meaning is much clearer. Nai1maker (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

...[1] ouch, that's going to sting some nationalist pride...! And as we're dealing with a primitive historical people, modern terminology of today's extant ethnic groups is wholly irrelevant. --Shannon Dal (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would or should. Most nationalists I know couldn't care less about the genetic relationship between the Welsh and the Cornish or the Scots and Cumbrians. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ireland is also covered. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

These genetic studies are worthless - every six months a new one comes out that totally contradicts the last one. If you look at the study closely, you will see that they employed some very sketchy methodology. It's all pseudo-science at this point (breathlessly reported on by the know-nothing media as if it were all the word of God) and future scientists will look back in horror at all the quackery of this era of historical genetics. Cagwinn (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, it looks pretty solid to me. What exactly is your issue with it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Small sample size; not enough ancient DNA to compare against; the control against modern immigration only stems as far back as the late 19th century, even though there was large movement of people around Britain earlier, starting in the 18th century, due to the Industrial Revolution; they seem to have only a superficial knowledge of British history. Cagwinn (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Barry Cunliffe is a co-author so presumably had some input to the historical aspects. 2039 individuals would give ample power for studies of this kind and the comparison is with 6209 individuals from continental Europe. The authors are looking for clustering of genotypes rather than fine genetic mapping. They were not looking specifically to study the Celts, rather looking for genetic structure in the UK. The PCA plots in the supplementary material are what we I believe we ought to focus on with regards to relationships between insular celtic groups. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this genetic study of modern British DNA even remotely relevant to this article? Cagwinn (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it reveals relatedness between groups that are claimed to be descended from Celtic people. It confirms that the English show similarity to groups within Northern Europe (France, Germany, Denmark, into Sweden), whereas the Welsh, Irish and Western Scots show greater similarity to unrelated groups (Spain, France, Belgium, into Germany, largely covering the region historically occupied by the Celts). It's fairly safe to say that one represents Saxon/Norman lineages whereas the others are Celtic. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Without a much larger database of ancient and early medieval DNA than we currently possess, studies like these have little merit. At some point in the Iron Age a number of Gaulish tribes settled in Britain (Parisi, Atrebates, Belgae, et al) and mixed in with the local tribes. Later, Britain was part of the Roman empire for four centuries, during which time people from all over the empire (but especially Gaul, Roman Germania, and Pannonia) were brought to the isles and people from the isles were sent to the Continent; which surely skews the genetic evidence in Britain and on the Continent. Forget about the middle ages, during which time we not only have the Vikings (which the study does seem to take into account), but also the re-introduction of a significant number of Bretons by the Normans (these Bretons who should be genetically a mix of Gallo-Romans, southwest Britons, plus a Frankish element); then, we also have the medieval planting of the Flemish in Wales, who surely must have left a genetic imprint there. In didn't see much of this addressed in the published study. Cagwinn (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of constraints limiting the authors. The cost of genotyping has dropped enormously in recent years, but the work involved in this paper will have cost several hundreds of thousands of pounds. Another constraint is manuscript size. Nature has a word limit for articles of 3000 words, so the authors have to be sparing with their conclusions. They may not have covered it in the text, but looking at figure 2, the South Pembrokeshire haplotype shows greater similarity to the Belgian haplotype than is seen in the North Pembrokeshire and North Wales clusters... that would be consistent with the Flemish plantation. Have you looked at the extended and supplementary figures? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that the original data behind the article was published in 2012. I don't see that it has much relevance to this article except that it illustrates the continuing influence of outdated scholarship on the way that the past is interpreted. It would indeed be remarkable if the people of the 'Celtic fringe' of Britain and Ireland were a genetically homogenous population not linked to the people of Central and Southern Britain. The study doesn't give any indication of when or how Celtic languages and cultures came into Britain and Ireland.Nai1maker (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles#Leslie, S. et al. Nature. It has been suggested that any changes to articles that this paper affects starts with Genetic history of the British Isles and that those changes if any are then reflected in other less specific articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Distribution" section

Following recent additions, this is now even more imbalanced than before, covering the fringe/linguistic areas of modern France, Spain, Italy, & Britain, but with nothing on the central archeological Celtic area of the German-speaking lands, Czech & other parts of Central Europe. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The areas in question gave rise to two artistic/physical culture styles, these are covered in other sections fairly adequately. What these areas didn't do is impinge greatly on the peoples who were writing history - Greeks and Romans - so they do not loom large in ancient history. Nor did these areas produce modern countries - such as the Celtic nations and France - with any great cultural investment in 'Celticity'. The only modern vestige of the Central European Celts is the name Bohemia and possibly the High German accent. There should, however, be some mention of these peoples. Urselius (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these, especially the last, is a reason to unbalance the article. There is certainly enough material on the core area, it's just a number of editors with interests in modern concepts of Celticity around the fringe areas have expanded other sections excessively, given the overall size of the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Celts in Italy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Celts in Italy is fantasy (only small inroads)--151.46.185.55 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be such an idiot. Cagwinn (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

please be taught education within the family or by an educator. Northern Italy was occupied by the Italic peoples:

and then the Celtic invasions of settlements but not comparable to France or to other areas Celtic --151.46.141.240 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are not fooling anyone on here - you are the same troll who has been vandalizing (and edit warring over) many of the Arthurian Wikipedia articles. You have caused several articles to be locked down - and this will be, too, if you don't stop your uninformed, ridiculous nonsense. Cagwinn (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We must enter into the debate and not to stray from the topic. This setting of the Celts in Italy is totally misleading. They want reliable sources for certain claims. She does not have a spirit contributory towards wikipedia. This is an original research.--151.44.129.5 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We know Celts occupied northern Italy. Does that mean everyone in the area spoke Celtic languages and wore torques? No, of course. So what? Also the distinction between Celtic and Italic is far from rigid. There were languages that existed in a space between the two. Paul B (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't even bother, Paul B.; I have been dealing with this guy on Wikipedia for many months now - he is a troll from Italy and is not interested in reasoned discussions. Cagwinn (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I take care of archeology and approve the response Paul B. We want reliable sources Cagwinn .. you know? I have noted your contributions (Cagwinn) are all POV vandalism. Talk about trolls? The reasoned arguments are based on reliable sources and not on fantasy. The Celtic invasions of settlements but not comparable to France or to other areas Celtic --151.35.10.111 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this User:Sweet Xeper? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck... Will need to rangeblock. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

please let you can avoid insulting me to win threads? The discussion is clear Celts in Italy. This page is exaggerated --151.47.52.195 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No insult there. "If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck" is a well known saying in English, called the duck test.

There is no argument here. You are indefinitely blocked from editing on Wikipedia but by using a dynamic IP you are managing to evade the block. This does not change the fact that you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. That includes talk pages. We can block you, but it result in a large number of other Italian IP addresses being blocked. I'd rather you just walked away instead. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Use blocked users to accuse others and win an argument is painful (Catfish). This discussion assumes a knowledge on the subject. Otherwise it is only confusion. Please let dealt with the topic. Reliable sources are welcome --151.18.162.135 (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research

The following paragraph lacks citations, and claims facts that are only claimed by the author. I suspect it is original research. Threshold publishing is not a peer reviewed publisher nor is it a scholarly outlet.

A recent book about an ancient site in northern Germany, concludes that it was the most significant Celtic sacred site in Europe. It is called the "Externsteine", the strange carvings and astronomical orientation of the chambers of this site are presented as solid evidence for a Celtic origin. In view of the large number of sites excavated in recent years in Germany, and formally defined as 'Celtic", Pryor's research appears to be on solid ground. (Damien Pryor, The Externsteine, 2011, Threshold Publishing, ISBN 978-0-9581341-7-0).

If no objections are made, the aforementioned paragraph will be deleted.

It's gone. Good catch. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120728122415/http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/hist_periods/iron_age.htm to http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/hist_periods/iron_age.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

^ Parry, Thomas (1962). The Oxford Book of Welsh Verse. Oxford: OUP. p. 1-4. ISBN o-19-812129-6. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

[1] Parry, Thomas (1962). The Oxford Book of Welsh Verse. Oxford: OUP. p. 1-4. ISBN o-19-812129-6. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

[1]