Talk:List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is the 300 tribes of France ?[edit]

The map for my country is wrong. Celtie is a different country than Armorica. And we had more 300 tribes in the territory of France.

One point feels me a little nervous, it's, all these names only in Latin. ("ii", often = "wi") Nobody could find and write the name in the true Celtic language? For us, in ARMORICA (but ARMORICA is not a good name to call about KERNEV, the CORNWALL of SOUTH, or CYMRU of SOUTH). Anyway the name should be write in old CYMRIC language, for the tribes from the CYMRIC branch, and in Old GAELIC, for the branch from EIRE and ERSE (scotland); with the meaning of the name of tribes, because these names of Tribes means always something.
To go on to diffuse the wrong latin information given by Rome, i cannot agree it.
Hominn, Kernéô Abrincatuï
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.243.136 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrians & Ubii[edit]

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 removed them. Bogdan | Talk 13:31, 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]

Ancalites[edit]

I added an article link for Ancalites, hope that's ok, now there's one! ;) Ciriii 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General improvement[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Celtiberians[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, of course the Celtiberians are Celtic - that is my point. Thus they should be moved up into the main section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NantonosAedui (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Map[edit]

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)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is just nationalism, please stop[edit]

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)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

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)[reply]

Iberia[edit]

Hello Ciriii. I see that you have reverted my inclusion of the Celtic populations of Iberia. You state that "early people of Iberia were not definitely Celt". Well... My friend, you are contradicting present knowledge on Celtic Iberia, as can be seen in the reference I've placed in the article (Alberro, Manuel and Arnold, Bettina (eds.), e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, Volume 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Center for Celtic Studies, 2005.) - please read it before going back to your archaic view that there were not Celts in Iberia. I am reverting you, given also the fact that my edit did not erase any of the info previously presented, I even added some images, and expanded the list of tribes in Iberia, with their respective links, and sourceded it (with a reference of the Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies and a Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC) by the archeological station of Tavira). My friend... I suspected that you may have a British Isles centered PoV!?! If this discussions turns out to be a war, I will be forced to ask for a Third opinion. Thank you. The Ogre 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a British isles point of view is, but clearly yours is a biased one. The article works on the assumption of "people" not political borders, we have had this argument again and again. The iberians were not celtic, but iberian. A distinct and seperate ethnic grouping, which is why they have their own sub grouping but do not appear in the "list of Celtic peoples". The celts that were in Iberia, being covered by the list of Gallic celts, or Celtiberians, make the need for a new section irrelevant. If you wish to begin a revert war, and seek a third party juridiction, ok. It is not about the "evidence", it is merely about the necessary format of the article. Ciriii 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My friend... Of course Iberians were not Celtic! But a great number of the populations of Iberia were not Iberians in the ethnic-cultural sense! Do not confuse them! And the celts in Iberia are not just covered by the Gallic celts or Celtiberians. An article like this is supposed to list all the celtic tribes - that is what I am trying to do - and with references! Notice that the article Celt states (blods are mine):

The term Celt, normally pronounced /kɛlt/ (see article on pronunciation), now refers primarily to a member of any of a number of peoples in Europe using the Celtic languages, which form a branch of the Indo-European languages. It can refer in a wider sense to a user of celtic culture. However, in ancient times the term 'celt' was used either to refer generally to barbarians in north-western Europe or to specific groups of tribes in Iberia and Gaul. This article is mainly about the ancient and modern views of the celts of pre-Roman Europe, with a separate article on Modern Celts. Although today restricted to the Atlantic coast of Western Europe, the so-called "Celtic fringe", Celtic languages were once predominant over a much wider area, from Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula in the west to northern Italy and Serbia in the east. Archaeological and historical sources show that at their maximum extent in the early centuries BC, the Celts were also present in areas of Eastern Europe and Asia Minor.

I shall ask for a Third Opinion. Thank you. The Ogre 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Have asked for a Third opinion. Have you read, Ciriii, what is written in Celt regarding Iberia, and I quote:
Main language areas in Iberia, showing Celtic and Proto-Celtic languages in green, and Iberian languages in purple, circa 250 BC.
See also: Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, Prehistoric Iberia, Hispania, Lusitania, and Gallaecia
Traditional 18th/19th centuries scholarship surrounding the Celts virtually ignored the Iberian Peninsula, since material culture relatable to the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures that have defined Iron Age Celts was rare in Iberia, and did not provide a cultural scenario that could easily be linked to that of Central Europe.
Modern scholarship, however, has proven that Celtic influences were very substantial in Iberia. The Celts in Iberia were divided in two main archaeological and cultural groups, even if the divide is not very clear:
The origins of the Celtiberians might provide a key to unlocking the Celticization process in the rest of the Peninsula. The process of celticization of the SW by the Keltoi and NW is however not a simple celtiberian question. Recent investigation about the Callaici Bracari in NW Portugal is bringing new approaches to understand celtic culture evidences (language, art and religion) in western Iberia.[1]
There is some evidence that Brythonic Celts migrated from Britain to Northern Iberia in the Early Middle Ages[citation needed]. However this culture did not survive.
I believe you are contradicting established facts! Thank you. The Ogre 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an expanded list of Iberian tribes etc that may be a compromise...if you couldedit it and put the relevant info like place names and also the maps on theer I think iut should be ok now. Ciriii 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend... are you saying that we should go back to my former version, given your most recent edits? And yes, I can put the info like place names and also the maps. The Ogre 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still desagree withe the heading "Celtic Forebears/Contemporaries" - their were Celts! Period. The Ogre 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no not your former version, the one now, if it suits both parties. Because the information on other contemporaries is there, but some other information for the reader I see as a compromise. In future, please do not use terms like "british point of view"; it is unecessarily inflammatory and highly sterotypical from someone who doesn't know my views. I apologiese for acalling you bias. Thank you for making the edits. Is it possible to find a better map of the British isles and Gaul than the ones that were formerly used, perhaps like The Iberian one, which is easy to read? I am not good at inserting images otherwise i would try. ThanksCiriii 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciriii I did not intend to offend you, sorry if that happened. I still have some issues regarding this version. What do you mean by "information on other contemporaries is there, but some other information for the reader I see as a compromise."? As I said, I still desagree withe the heading "Celtic Forebears/Contemporaries" - their were Celts! And do not agree with the statement "The people living in the Iberian peninsula live don the edge of the Celtic world and although Gallic influence culture penetrated in the north there was a distinct and seperate culture throughout much of Spain and Portugal until Roman Expansion and conquest." - I believe it can be better sated. I can also try to find better maps, but it may take a while. Should we let the previous one there meanwhile? The Ogre 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ciriii. Done some changes. What do you think? The Ogre 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion[edit]

Hi Ciriii and The Ogre. I found your request for a third opinion, and read over your discussion. I'm no expert on the Celts or Iberia, so I'm not the best person to address the content dispute; however, I have some comments about your process so far:

  • The first two comments contained some heated language, but did effectively state the main points.
  • The Ogre stated their intentions and quoted from another article with emphasis to support their point, and announced the request for a third opinion.
  • The Ogre quoted the other article again, and stated their belief that Ciriii was "contradicting established facts".
  • Ciriii created compromise text, and invited The Ogre to contribute to it ("if you could edit it...").
  • The Ogre requested clarification of a point, agreed to the requested contribution, and stated disagreement with wording of a heading.
  • Ciriii gave the requested clarification. Focusing on process, they requested The Ogre do something differently, explained why the previous action did not work well, and apologized for something Ciriii did previously. Ciriii thanked The Ogre for their contribution and requested help from The Ogre with some content (a map) which is not Ciriii's strong point.
  • The Ogre apologized for what had not worked well. Then they asked for another clarification of wording, stated a couple of disagreements (with direct quotes), and suggested a rewording. They agreed to search for a map, and requested agreement to keep the current map in the interim.

You have stated your points clearly, explained your intentions, used direct quotes, collaboratively edited compromise text, requested and given clarification, evaluated and addressed the process, explained what did not work well and what to do differently, apologized to each other, thanked each other, and requested help from each other. In my opinion, you are negotiating well and moving in the right direction. The request for a third opinion might have been premature. Ask again if you still have a dispute after your negotiations, but I don't think you will, if you keep doing what you have been doing. In the meantime, I hope my perspective is helpful. Charm ©† 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Archeological site of Tavira, official website

Senones[edit]

Senones were only in Romagna and the Romagna portion of Marche form river montone (ravenna included) trhough Esino river near Senigallia (so called because of theiri "gallica" inhabitants). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.25.75 (talk • contribs)

Ruteni[edit]

Ruteni were mentioned by Caesar, but are not on the list? Why? They were significant contributors (foederati) to the Roman army, although one part was on the Vercingetorix's side against Romans. - signed by anon IP

Were the Ruteni related to any Slavic peoples (former Yugoslavia) from across the Adriatic sea? The Roman Empire took over Celtic and non-Indo-European lands like the Etruscans. If they were still Celtic people, the Ruteni would have a relationship with the so-called Ruthenians in present-day Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By Tribe as Well?[edit]

Should this also be listed by tribe? For instance the damnoni/dumnoni of Britain are possibly the same in origin, as are the cornovi, and the brigantes. So perhaps they also ought to be listed by tribes as well. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with moving Great Britain and Ireland? ---G.T.N. (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Why do we have a modern day attempt at a map of Wales to show tribes that would've inhabited the area thousands of years ago. Complete nonsense that the tribes began and ended with relative modern boundaries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.232.195 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to the national boundaries? ---G.T.N. (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgae, Boii[edit]

The tribes named are definitely Celtic and there are many reliable references for this. I will be adding citations for all the tribes you questioned. Please try to be specific instead of changing the whole meaning of the page by inserting "mostly" in front of Celtic.Jembana (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several tribes named Belgae and Boii (or spelled Boi, Boui and Voii) in continental Europe and the British Isles. There are also many tribes named Gal- like the Galatians in Asia Minor (Turkey) and we're not sure there's a relation with the Galilee in the Holy Land in biblical Palestine/Israel. The term Gal-il in Aramaic and Hebrew (Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages) means "center" or "central", "district" or "province" and "part" or "sect", not related to Celtic and Indo-European languages meaning of Gal. 12.218.47.123 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Celtic tribes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Celtic tribes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ligurians' other names[edit]

Ligurians had a few different names in this field of study: Ligures, Ligyles, Ambrones and Cimbris. The articles point to Ambrones who were Germanic and Cimbri whose name were derived from Cimmerians of Iranian origin in Europe. Apparently, the Ligurians were either originally non-Celtic, para-Celtic or partially Celtic. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantii[edit]

A tribe named for living near the Atlantic Ocean living in the southern and western Basque Country, itself not a Celtic "homeland". Sometimes, the Aquitani were listed as Celtic, except it's more probable they were Iberian or related to the Basque people or Vascones. Another name for Atlantii is Alanti (similarly sounds or spelled like "Aryan"), not to be confused with Alans whom settled in Spain and Portugal after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 1st millennia AD. 12.218.47.123 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this article is worded very strangely[edit]

it repeats itself a lot, and the tone feels off. i also feel like it goes into completely irrelevant tangents, such as with the Nazi mentions. sometimes it sounds like the author does not trust the reader's intelligence, and there are many typos. but there is some good content within as well. 2A01:E0A:163:2E60:B5EE:741:B09D:EB5B (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_ancient_Celtic_peoples_and_tribes&oldid=1218500145"