Talk:Gaul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Can we get a map here? --Tubby 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems that several are needed:

  • topographic map of the region (so the natural physical boundaries can be seen - alps, rhine, north sea, pyrenees
  • map of the roman provinces (at several time periods - gallic wars, augustan reform, diocletian reform)
  • map of tribal locations and territories
  • map of roman gaul civitates

I might be able to help with some of that. I have copyright free topographic data, coastlines, and rivers. I can plot symbols given the lat/long. Other boundaries take time to plot. --Nantonos 01:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The Gauls sacked Rome circa 390 BC, destroying all Roman historical records to that point." Where is that coming from???? Could someone elaborate on that pont? olivier 03:43 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

The link to Iberians in the second paragraph points somewhere nonsensical.

  • Yes it is. The two relevant links on the resulting disambiguation page are Hispania and Iberian language, and since Hispania is already linked to in the article text, I'm going to send that link to Iberian language.Binabik80 18:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs a rewrite. The Celts never referred to themselves as Celts. Gaul and Gallic are terms that, according to the Romans, were used by the "celts" to describe themselves. Hence Gaelic, Gaul, Galicia (both in spain and turkey, yes they settled there over 2000 years ago). Gaul and Gallic aren't just English terms, they are the terms that the "celts" used to describe themselves.--Dumbo1 01:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, in Gallic Wars Caesar states that the name the Gauls call themselves in their own language is Celt (according to Historical Atlas of the Celtic World); I'm aware that there are a number of theories regarding which Indo-European root the word Celt comes from, but so far as I know the most commonly accepted theories all hold that it is a Celtic word. A quick googlesearch for the etymology of Gaul reveals three theories: from the Celtic word for "brave", the Celtic word for "white" or the Germanic word for "foreigner".Binabik80 18:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why this image doesn't qualify as fair use? It demonstrates how it advances knowledge of the arts through the addition of something new. → JarlaxleArtemis 22:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond here, then copy my response to your talk page, since I'm not sure a discussion of this really belongs here.
I'm no expert on copyright law; a glance through your talk page shows several people who have been there who do seem to have a pretty good understanding of the issues at hand, so perhaps you might want to try asking one of them, especially Rhobite, who removed the image from this article in the first place.
After a look through the article on fair use, however, it strikes me that use of the image here violates two of the four determining factors for fair use:
    1. Purpose and character. Use of the image in this Wikipedia article was derivative, not transformative. Its use here didn't "stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public" by adding something new to its original conception; rather, it "aim[ed] to only 'supersede the objects' of the original". It's a map of Roman Gaul to illustrate articles about Roman Gaul on Encarta's website, and its use here is simply as a map of Roman Gaul in the Wikipedia article on Roman Gaul, without permission from the copyright holder (Encarta).
    2. Effect upon work's value. This deals more with the general principle of using Encarta images on Wikipedia than on the specific use of a map of Roman Gaul. Widespread instance of this would damage Encarta's ability to exploit their original work, both by (a) superseding the object of the original work, and by (b) destroying Encarta's potential licensing market for their original work (they can't very well charge others to use their work if they're letting us get away with using them for free).
My understanding is that the only really cut-and-dry instances of US fair use is when the use revolves around the original work itself: criticising it, reviewing it, parodying it, teaching about it, etc. But even then (and I can't imagine why we'd ever be parodying or reviewing Encarta), I'd check with someone more knowleageable than me before using Encarta images. But incorporating Encarta's work into our own is right out. Hope that helps. Binabik80 01:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reorganize, disambiguate, split?

The subject matter and the nature of inbound links suggest that a more systematic approach to the topic is needed. For example, it should be more clearly distinguished whether we're talking about the region or the tribal group. Ultimately, they probably warrant separate articles, though I'm not sure whether to make that simply Gaul for the region and Gauls for the people, or make this into a disambiguation page and put the articles at "Gaul (region)" and something else for the people — Gaul (tribe); Gallic peoples? --Michael Snow 21:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it's a mess. I tried Roman Gaul. The list I took form de:, but it should be checked. dab (ᛏ) 21:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no 'tribal group' called Gaul. Gaul is usually used to refer to the collection of three provinces - Gallia Aquitania, Gallia Celtica, Gallia Belgica. It is also, at an earlier period, used to refer to Gallia Cisalpina (northern Italy, north of the river Po).

I have tried to clear up some of the obvious errors in the list of Gaulish tribes - the unweildy list needs to be split by province, though. --Nantonos 01:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I removed the list of tribes below, linking instead to the better List of peoples of Gaul which lists them plus their capitals. --Nantonos 02:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that list, obviously, or it would have saved me some time. So yeah, my incomplete list can just be thrown away. However, my point was that the "peoples of Gaul" should be discussed on this article, and the list was a beginning. But concerning, "There is no 'tribal group' called Gaul", I disagree: How do you suggest the (pre-Roman-conquest) speakers of Gaulish should be referred to as a group? Gauls, I expect. So either we have to make Gauls a separate article, or discuss them here. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree that the people of Gaul, collectively, should be discussed here and should be called Gauls. However, the idea that they formed a unified political group, while popular among French academics in the period 1870-1940, has no factual basis. This is what I meant by 'no tribal group'. There was not a single tribe; you could not talk to 'the leader of the Gauls'. Hence, of course, the espablishment of the Condate Altar in Lyon, for representatives of all the Gaulish tribes to meet. --Nantonos 14:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


So, has this been taken care of? I was redirected here from "Gauls", and I was looking for (as Dbachmann said) "the (pre-Roman-conquest) speakers of Gaulish[...]as a group". Is there an article that would be more clear than this one about that?--24.58.164.194 12:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (ViolinGirl)

[edit] Gaulish or Gaelic?

I believe the correct way to address the language of the Gauls is Gaelic not gaulish. --Vidushi 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gaelic actually refers to the native languages and cultures of Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man. The language and culture of Gaul are described in English as Gaulish or Gallic; while Gallic is probably the more common of the two, it does carry a degree of ambiguity that Gaulish does not, since it is also a vaguely poetic adjective used to describe modernday France and her people.
Gaulish is the correct and current term to refer to the language of Gaul, or Gallo-Brittonic to talk of the (assumed similar/identical) language of Gaul and pre-Roman Britain. Perhaps you are confusing it with the language of the Gaels, whose language is indeed Gaelic. --Nantonos 16:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A case of Interpretatio graeca/romana?

According to this entry: "Their system of gods and goddesses was loose, there being certian deities which virtually every Gallic person worshiped, as well as tribal and household gods. Many of the major gods were related to Greek gods; the primary one worshiped at the arrival of Caesar was Teutates, the Gallic equivalent of Mercury. The "father god" in Gallic worship was "Dis Pater," who could be assigned Roman name "Saturn." However, there was no real theology, just an "ever-expanding, ever-shifting, formless chaos" of modes of worship."

I do not know much about Gallic religion but how sure are we that Teutates and Dis Pater were equivalents to Mercury and Saturn respectively. I think this should be clarified or at least referenced to a non-Graeco-Roman (that is, modern and neutral) source. To assume that their ancient gods are "our" (the deities with which we are most familiar) may be oversimplifying and overshadowing a distinct culture's belief, perhaps a modern case of interpretatio graeca.

From a quick google it appears that Dis Pater was a Roman deity of the underworld. The name means "Rich Father" and is cognate with Pluto (Plouton), itself derived from ploutos (rich). It appears that the Gauls confused the name with a derivative of Dyeus Phter (Sky Father), the chief Indo-European god, whose name survived in Roman times as Jupiter (Jove Father), and they therefore believed that Dis Pater was an ancestor of theirs.

Thus the Gauls believed that their Dis Pater was the the Dis Pater of the Romans, but in etymological terms he was cognate with Jupiter. In actual fact, of course, he was not absolutely identical to either.

I got my info from http://www.celtnet.org.uk/gods_d/dis_pater.html and a couple of other places - Ireneshusband 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Bias

"In terms of their religion, the Gauls were relatively undeveloped"

This statement is unnecessarily judgmental. It tells us nothing that the rest of the paragraph does not tell us.

"However there was no real theology, just an 'ever-expanding, ever-shifting, formless chaos' of modes of worship."

If something is in quotes then presumably someone is being quoted. A citation is needed. The phrase quoted is a rather florid value judgement. It is one that would be quite appropriate in a history textbook, but not in a reference encyclopedia, unless, that is, the scholarly debates on the subject are themselves being discussed. - Ireneshusband 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would Benefit from More Sources

"Their system of gods and goddesses was loose, there being certain deities which virtually every Gallic person worshiped, as well as tribal and household gods. Many of the major gods were related to Greek gods; the primary god worshiped at the time of the arrival of Caesar was Teutates, the Gallic equivalent of Mercury. The "father god" in Gallic worship was "Dis Pater," who could be assigned the Roman name "Saturn." However there was no real theology, just an "ever-expanding, ever-shifting, formless chaos" of modes of worship."

Though we've lost a great deal of information about the various modes of Celtic religion, Continental and otherwise, we can, from our current knowledge, safely assume that, while the Celtic "pantheon" may have varied from country to country and, to a smaller extent, tribe to tribe, Celtic worship was not a "loose" system. Consider the stratified developments in pre-Christian Ireland, with the various classes of intelligentsia and the rigorous training they undertook to attain their social positions. As for Teutates being the primary deity worshipped in Gaul at the time of the Roman invasions, there's no way to know this for certain. In fact, little can be said to be certain in regards to our knowledge of the Gauls, at least in regards to that about which the Romans wrote. Much of Caesar's commentary on the Gauls must be taken with more than a grain of salt, being that he wrote for the purposes of recording his prowess in war and satisfying his ego, and in an effort to convince his superiors of the necessity of stamping out Gaulish power and surplanting it with Empirical authority. Other Roman writers were, more often than not, merely restating Caesar's opinions of the Gauls, as they weren't even around to witness free Gaul and its culture. As a final note, it is unlikely that Teutates was "the equivalent of Mercury". Teutates was most likely a title, not a name, given to a tribe's "patron" (for lack of a better word). According to Peter Berresford Ellis, a Gaulish version of the pan-Celtic deity Lugh, probably known by something like "Lugus," is the most likely to have been considered by Caesar to be the Gaulish Mercury.

--Art MacAilein 19:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/u/Talk%7EGaul_b267.html"