Talk:List of Celtic tribes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Illyrians a celtic tribe?? --Yak 13:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ubii? The entry says the're Germanic? --Yak 13:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think there's some talk about a mixing of the original Illyres and the migrating Celts... similarly with the Thracians etc. In any case, their mention under "see also" should probably stay. --Joy [shallot]
I added an article link for ancalites, hope that's ok, now there's one! ;) Ciriii 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I now believe this useful article name "List of Celtic Tribes", has been edited into a less particularly useful, perhaps nationalist and factional article. Headings such as "[Asia minor]" which then do not go on to list any Celtic tribes, a single heading of [Celtiberia] as a seperate heading to the tribes within [Spain], an edit about the tribes which lived within the political borders of the republic of [Ireland]...This i have reverted, and i intend to revert more if there is no dispute in 48 hours. This is intended to be a list for easy access surely? Which tribes lived in Spain, ireland..etc. Unfortunately the celts did not respect modern day political boundaries, and we cannot impose them upon history. Further adding Continents and nations which contained no celtic nations is not only ludicrous but factually wrong; yes it's a shame, but we can't all have a celt! Ciriii 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
havent deleted anything, but made some cahnges, links, changed alot...might actually be just for my benefit as nobody sems to care! lalala....Added a few peoples who should be classed as celtic sub group, and put some into the sub-group who shoup who should be there, though I'm a bit confused about the Illyrians and where this information came from, I never knew there were Illyrian Celts?I assumed they would all be Helennic, but due to the gallic progression, have left it! Ciriii 16:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why Scythia and Dacia are included in the list described by ambiguous words "These peoples are believed to have strong Celtic associations, though not thoroughly proven to be Celts". They were not the Celts, though there were wars (and trade) between them and the Celts. But the same would be true for Greeks and Germanic tribes. I do not think that all peoples who fighted (or traded with) the Celts should be listed here. And I do not know ANY "strong Celtic associations" of Medes. I would be happy to know the opinion of other editors. Tankred 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No you are right and i would be happy for the wording to be arranged. There are several differing theories theories that the "Celts" (in the very broadest sense of the word) were originally inhabitants or the same people as the Dacians or Scythii. With the Scythii there has been much work done in relationship to their migration west and possible resettlement into the British isles. Because the celts were a migratory people and didn't simply spring up in these lands, the evidence shows more than trade and relatively few wars, especially linguistically and militaristically, but perhaps that does not belong here. As for Medes, there was a large celtic presence in the Medes army. These were the Anatolian Celts. I will add sources to the page. I am happy for the section to be re-named or enlarged, perhaps contemporaries of the Celtic peoples, in actual fact there wouldn't be that many withing local boundaries.Ciriii 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the small, not very complete listing of Gaulish tribes, replacing it with a link to the main list which already existed.
--Nantonos 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Celtiberians
I see this text:
- (The Ibero-Celts were most certainly Celts, but heavy influence, firstly from the Iberian Almerian civilisations, then Carthage means they probably should belong to a separate sub-group.
In the same logic, heavy influence on the Romans from the Greeks and the Etruscans would mean that the Romans are not Romans; similarly heavy influence from the Phoceans of Massalia, the Ligurians, and the Etruscans would mean the Gauls are not Gauls... cultures influenced each other substantially at all periods in history. There was much trade and travel. I can't see why the Celtiberians are down there in the 'not really celtic' section along with the Medes and the Dacians... --Nantonos 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The Celtiberians are recognised as Forebears of a celtic civilisation in Hispania, at least this is one theory. Is the link for Celtiberian not to that appropriate page which explains this, i will check, if not please adjust. Also, i am putting the Gallic tribes back, it is all very well having a sperate page, but this a page to include all tribes.Ciriii 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course the Celtiberians are Celtic - that is my point. Thus they should be moved up into the main section.
No, please don't put the small poor list 'back'. It didn't list all the tribes before (clearly this page started as a list of British celtic tribes and has grown by adding a selection of others). You could put a copy of the main Gaulish list, but would you then ensure it is kept up to date? --Nantonos 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see that not only did you put the old, poor list back, you also deleted the link to the much fuller and better list. I am reverting your change, because your edit reduced the quality of the page. --Nantonos 17:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is a list of CELTIC TRIBES, and should include the ones of Gaul also, not just a redirect to another page, which should be placed at the bottom. instead of removing them and redirecting to a different page, please improve the list since you clearly have the knowledge to do so.Ciriii 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the link from the top in the first place, because it already existed at the bottom, which is generally where links are located. I have no problem with the same information on the tribes of gaul page being repeated on here, but not to simply ignore them. I don't think whether this started as a tribes of Britain page or not is relevant, as it is not now.
Do you think you could then add improve the list of Gauls, rather than deleting it simply again?Ciriii 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Map
This map is much better than the last one...but can anyone find one both where all the tribes mentioned are noted and where Wales looks half realistic! Ciriii 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terminology
Is "tribe" really the best term for Celtic population groups? The convention seems to be that such a group is a "tribe" before being conquered by Rome, implying primitive political organisation, and a "civitas" thereafter, implying a more sophisticated setup, but the word used in Latin texts is civitas in both instances, and the level of political organisation seems to me to be more complex than tribal. Certainly the "tribes" (civitates) of Gaul described by Caesar have a stratified social structure (class system) which is typical of chieftoms, proto-states, or even in the most advanced cases full states.
Wikipedians tend to base their edits on older reference works, particularly public domain ones on the internet, but it seems to me that in recent years there's a move away from the term "tribe" among scholars. A. R. Birley, introducing his 1999 translation of Tacitus's Agricola and Germania for Oxford World's Classics, says "I have avoided the word 'tribe' to describe the native peoples or states of Britain and Germany... 'Tribe' is, I think, a misleading expression... Instead I have used terms such as 'state(s)', 'people(s)', 'community', occasionally 'nation', according to the context." A. J. Woodman, in his 2004 translation of Tacitus's Annals, uses "community" or "kingdom".
I saw the first part of Terry Jones's Barbarians on BBC2 last night and he savaged Roman historians for their dismissive and condescending attitude towards the Celts, but it seems to me that Caesar and Tacitus look down on the Gauls and Britons less than most modern historians, and in many ways it's the choice of the word "tribe" to translate civitas that's to blame (that and assuming the word "barbarian" had its modern connotations of unrestrained viciousness and brutality, which is another argument). I'd be interested to read people's opinions on this. --Nicknack009 13:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Your point is very valid, tribe is often misleading. Though I think it is also appropriate in some instances. Although tribes is still probably what most people would refer to as a celtic social structure, i believe "celtic peoples" would be more appropriate. Ciriii 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is just nationalism, please stop
Will people please stop nationalising this page. It is highly inappropriate. Like removing Portugal from Celtiberians; they inhabited northern Portugal, and the wikipedia page states so. Or removing Croatia from the Scordisci, their range incompassed this; also stated in wikipedia itself, and despite your own opinions, it is necessary merely for a consensus, and because it is a viewpoint. Removing things like that is essentially nationalism, iunless you explain why....and present your views and an opposite and valid point??Ciriii 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits
I tried to include the recent edits and put links in. But just putting "Gaul-Belguim" in next to certain tribes which already had a different placing i didnt understand, that space i think was intended for where the tribe wass from, and it already stated they weren't? If you could elabortae with some decent links? And if you could write about the Gaulish language on that page, this is for the placing of tribes..though it is interesting? I never heard that?? Ciriii 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
