Talk:Celt (tool)

"this topic is confusing"
In a discussion on our forum, this topic was quoted to allow the misuse of the term "Celt" for (alledged !) Thai artefacts.

In the article, it is clearly stated why the use of this term is wrong.. why is it a lemma ? The pictures are confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodies (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can it please be deleted, renamed, or integrated in a more general topic, e.g. about "misunderstandings about naming objects in 19th century archeology" ?

Many thanks,

Goodies (muntenbodemvondsten forum, The Netherlands) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodies (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"misreading"
Old version:The term "celt" came about from a misreading of Job 19:24 in the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible: Stylo ferreo, et plumbi lamina, vel certe sculpantur in silice (It is indeed carved with an iron pen on a plate of lead or in stone). The certe ("indeed") was misread as celte, which would have to be the ablative of a non-existent third declension noun celt or celtis, the ablative case giving the sense "with/by a celt".

- this is not a "misreading" (like Moses and "cornu" - is it? - & various other well-known Vulgate mistakes) but a typo in the particular edition, it seems to me. I shall amend accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC) - in fact rejigged as was initiallyt a MS error. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder how you tell what was in the copyist's mind, so that you know whether he mis-read it or mis-wrote it ? 'Lol' at the thought of mis-typing it ! "Copyist's error" seems best NPOV ! Fascinating etymology. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because many other old copies get it right, and there appears to be no Latin word it could have been "misread" as. The printed edition above was long after the readings diverged, but made it official. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Excellent etymology section. Just goes to show how a copy-error can become a standard term, over time. Archaeologists continue to use this word, to this very day. I wonder why they don't just call it a chisel, instead of using archaic/obsolete terms? They probably think they're being more accurate by using such terms, but in this case, it's not accurate at all. Fuzzform (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"celt" as a noun of the third declension
I wonder if "celt" even could be a word of third declension. I don't think those usually end in -t, and neither do I know of any Latin words whatsoever that end in -lt; I don't think that's phonologically possible in Latin. "celtis" might be more plausible of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.224.210 (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Celt is is a latin word
It is an obscure species of Lotus. See here. Rwflammang (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tools or tops ?
"It is likely that these "tools" had a strictly ritual function"
 * Has anyone tried using them as a rattleback top ? It seems like a good way to get thrown out of a museum !


 * Interestingly, the Olmec culture is also metioned in the article compass, so they were used to spinning rocks on a flat surface.
 * There is also mention of rattlebacks being used for divination and having archaeological origins - could be an ancient form of "spin the bottle" ...


 * Pure OR, of course !
 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strangely, rattleback lists "celt" as one of the alternative names... Good original research, by the way. Now you just need to turn it into a 20 page paper that incorporates random esoteric jargon. Fuzzform (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tools I think, given that they're almost identical in form to the nephrite adzes of the Māori. - Snori (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Needs to actually describe the subject
This article really needs to actually describe what a celt is, with better pictures (i.e. with a handle?).

Instead, it's almost entirely a treatise on the etymology of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.161.95 (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, the etymology is fine, but any description of the actual tool or its practical, symbolic, religious, artistic, or cultural significance is lacking. Reify-tech (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celt (tool). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717081415/https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9507&L=CELTIC-L&P=2539 to https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9507&L=CELTIC-L&P=2539

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

extremely precise definition...
"...stone or bronze tool similar to an adze, hoe, or axe." - this is one of the most precise definitions I've ever read! congrats! HilmarHansWerner (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)