Talk:Celtici

Cleanup and Verification
Removed the Cleanup and Verification tags. Added sources and some more info. Still needs a lot of work, though. The Ogre 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Was it for verification? Such a small article? OMG! It must have been the "True Celts" thing. They were true Celts and it must be readed, it shouldnt be removed because someone with lack of information removed. True Celts means they were already Celts, and not the people that were to give origin to the Celts (the proto-Celts), Portugal was invaded by proto-celts and true celts. I'm the original author that added it to the Portuguese lang. wiki, and that is taken from books. -Pedro 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was probably the "True Celts" thing that made User:Angr (who is a specialist in theoretical linguistics and mostly interested in the Celtic languages) tag it for verification. That and the fact that it was a very short stub. This article needs expansion. If you have books (please cite them)or just further information on the Celtici you could be the one for the job. As to the fact that the Celtici were not Proto-Celts, ok, we all agree, but maybe calling them "True Celts" is a bit old fashioned... I'm sure there are better ways to state that fact (I already added the fact that they where of the La Tène culture...). The Ogre 17:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The name "True Celts" definitely made me suspicious. I wondered on whose authority they were called "True" Celts, as if other Celts were somehow fake. But I probably would have added the tag even without that, just because there seems to be a certain fashion for claiming Celtic tribes all over the map of Europe, without actually verifying that (1) the tribe actually existed or (2) the tribe is verifiably Celtic. And even for the Celtici, if there isn't linguistic or at least archaeological evidence that they were Celtic, we shouldn't boldly claim that they were just because of their name. If there is such evidence, it would be great if it could be discussed in the article (with sources cited, of course). --Angr/undefined 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look this article up. It is available in E-Keltoi - Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies; Volume 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula. Some revision of all the articles referening to the pre-roman peoples of Iberia is needed. I'll have to read the whole issue... The Ogre 15:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link. I've removed the text itself, though, as it's probably a copyright violation to copy it here, even onto a talk page. --Angr/undefined 17:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I'm sorry about that... By the way the whole volume about The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula seems interesting, and several of the articles deal with the Celtici (amongst others). You also may find this detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC) interesting! The Ogre 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand you, Angr. Sorry. Unfortunatly not all sources are in the Internet. The ogre, I think those links are very interresting!! thanks. -Pedro 02:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed it. The Ogre had originally provided not just a link to the article in "E-Keltoi" but had actually pasted the entire text of the article into this talk page. Short quotes from copyrighted texts are allowed under fair use, but pasting an entire article into a Wikipedia page isn't. So I left the link but removed the text. --Angr/undefined 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Luckely, he found links (good ones), but the original source was not from the Internet. What use the sources would have in that case? You couldnt check them out... In real life: most Portuguese don't see any relation or give any importance to the Celts: the importance is given to the Lusitanians and the Romans. And, strangely or not, the North is seem as more Celtic than the South. It is probably due to ancient migrations and migrations of that tribe that lived in the south. As I said, the real Celts is just what historians call them here. There's no popular wave saying they were real Celts, cause most never heard of them. People see just one people before the Romans, the Lusitanians. I, myself was excited when I saw so many peoples in the area of Portugal. I would like to know the people that lived in this region (Póvoa de Varzim): the Callaeci?? the Bracari?? In my city there's just a Roman stone with the name "LVSITANIA". I know there were castro people, it is clear because of their city's ruins, but of what tribe?  --Pedro 12:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, speak for yourself :) I am portuguese and give plenty of importance to the Celts, and so many people I know. It's actually directly realted to the importance given to the Lusitanians, Gallaeci and Celtici. This is normal since the substractum of the population derives from them. The "problem" is the fact that "Celts" refers to both the Central European Celts and the Atlantic Celts, which are older in origin. I think what you call "True Celts" is the former, whereas most Western Iberia is of an older stock. This is a tricky subject since these "older celts" are more related to, say, the original Britons than to tribes near the Danube. In historiography the division is sometime refered as Hallstat vs. La Tene, but even this is changing a bit given the new theories oflack of demic difusion and large-scale "invasions". What we call "Celtiberians" - read, the Iberian Celts and not the specific tribe that was given that name - are a mix of different named tribes with fluid boundaries,both cultural and territorial, and that relate more with the Atlantic Celts than the Gauls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.213.244 (talk • contribs)

Confusion
There was a confusion here, which I fell for too: If you read the quoted classical sources, when they mention "Lusitania" they are talking about a territory and not "the Lusitanian people". Remember, the territory of Lusitania is not the same thing as the Lusitanian tribe/ethnic group. When Pliny and other Romans wrote about "Lusitania" they meant the territory of the Roman province of that name, not the Lusitanian tribe that lived in part of it prior to and immediatly after the Roman conquest. When Pliny talk's of the Celtici's Lusitania, he means their bit of that (Roman provincial) territory and not those bits occupied by other groups, eg, the Lusitanians, the Coni, etc. Provocateur (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Celtici. 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/20081006160601/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtici. 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/20110825063316/http://oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epigraphik_en to http://oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epigraphik_en

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) 18:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Origins
I've removed rather a large chunk of stuff because first of all it started with the "weasel words" according to modern research... and then brings in early 20th century "waves of invaders" ideas whereby all changes in material culture equals a change in ethnic makeup, all unsourced and unattributed, and then attempts to back it up by citing Roman sources. Further, when these are actually examined, they are nothing to do with the subject: Livy is talking about Gracchus fighting the Celtiberians and Pliny is talking about Corsica and Sardinia in the cited passages. Paul S (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Greek and Phoenician Colonies in The Iberian Peninsula.png