Talk:Celts/Archive 7

Defining "Original Research"
1. the presence of Celtic tribes in Iberia is attested by archaeological material 2. but this Celtic archaeological material is very thin and controversial : no chariots, no real Celtic oppidum, no druidic culture attested, not much toponyms, even compared to SW France (considered as not Celtic)...in fact, just some inscriptions, dishes and weapons - see the sources. 3. Names given to some tribes do not prove anything (see Lombardy, Burgundy, Andalusia...). 4. many authors contest that Iberia should have ever known any Celtic culture. See the sources that I have posted. Idem for the most of Italy and Galatia. 5. conclusion 1 : due to this thin heritage and according to those numerous authors, we cannot present a map titled "distribution of Celtic peoples" or "languages" including Iberia or Italy, since Celts were not the dominant culture in these regions. Outside a central core where majority Celtic culture is really attested (most of France, British Isles, Southern and Central Germany...), Celts have formed only scattered tribes and minorities ; same schema for the Germanics : outside the central Germanic core (Germany, England, Holland, Scandinavia), they will form only scattered tribes or minorities. 6. conclusion 2 : du to this thin heritage and due to those numerous authors, we must add a paragraph establishing that Celtic culture is not really attested in Spain and contested by many authors. (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have provided references for 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, it appears that you have failed to provide references for 5 and 6. These appear to be your own conclusions from references observations 1 to 4. No matter how logical a jump it may seem to conclude 5 and 6 from 1 to 4, it is an original synthesis unless conclusion 5 and 6 have been published in a reliable, independent source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, it appears that you have failed to provide references for 5 and 6. These appear to be your own conclusions from references observations 1 to 4."

'''Wrong : are you too lazy to read the talk page ? Here is a copy-paste of the sources D/ :'''

D/ About the controversy about celtic impact in Iberia or South-east Europe

Source = articles, books and “alternative” maps

1 - Source : Putger Historic Atlas (1981 edition)

http://www.ruthfrost.ch/Horgen2/Kelten_Karte.jpg

Iberia is outside the Celtic culture core.--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

2 - Source : Francisco Villar – Los Indoeuropeos y los origenes de Europe, Italian version, p.446

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Celts_in_III_century_BC.jpg

Iberia and Italy are outside the Celtic culture core.--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

3 - Source : Paul Graves Brown Siân Jones Clive Gamble – Cultural identity and archaeology : the construction of European communities (p.189-190)

http://books.google.fr/books?id=9BsG0pXp61sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cultural+identity+and+archaeology+:+the+construction+of+European+communities&source=bl&ots=f0Wv9Lt_G0&sig=XB172FxmK-j4mEScvhkcjwCoP4c&hl=fr&ei=L-ZJTLHMId_csAbHurmbDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

''The Autonomous Communities encourage the exploration of their past as part of the very legitimate task of discovering their national or regional identity. But on occasions, these “roots of the past” are distortions (Gonzalez Morales 1992), as when current political and administrative units are ascribed to proto-historic ethnic groups…Moreover, the danger of distortion is considerable in view of popular works by local scholars and amateurs that encourage fanciful interpretations, probably with the best of intentions, but with little knowledge of history. For example, Celtic mythologisations appear to awaken a response in the North of Spain, in regions such as Galicia and Cantabria, precisely where the rigorous examination of the archaeological evidence makes it very difficult to “see” any Celt in the traditional sense (Gomez Tabanera 1991 ; Pereda 1992).''

Is it really useful to comment ? --Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

4 - Source : Data-whales – reliable source since used in the page “Welsh people”

http://www.data-wales.co.uk/celt2.htm

Iberia and Italy are outside the Celtic culture core.--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

5 - Source : Carlos Serrano – Nations seeking past the Iberian Peninsula (XIX-XX centuries) – p.180

http://books.google.fr/books?id=SmWgmzn6Vn0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22nations+en+qu%C3%AAte+de+pass%C3%A9%22&source=bl&ots=B71egJgmHd&sig=qv8bJxws9Z5PcPHKLpVkRJSu93Y&hl=fr&ei=duhJTIK1AcepsQb27_2pDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

''The referral of the issue of the Celtic notion in a linguistic criterium is reinforced by other considerations from archaeology, which stress the need to differentiate clearly between Celts and “castrum culture” on which the Celtic ethnicity did not exercise necessarily its hegemony, because, as one current researcher says [J.De Hoz, “Lingua et etnicidade na Galicia antiga” in G.Pereira Menaul (ed.), O feito diferencial ga lego, I, Historia Santiago, t.l, Museo du Pobo Galego, 1997, p.117], the “Celts” who has penetrated into Galicia were not numerous enough to transform the social and vital habits of the area. Consequently, the concept of Celtic lost all evocative power of the singularity of a people that the historians and poets of “Rexurdimento” had inoculated it. In a recent handbook on the history of Galicia, which was published by publisher A Nosa Terra, we read that '''“we lack data that can only suggest that the culture of castrum should be Celtic. Our material culture bears no resemblance to the Celtic areas of Europe…"' (F.Calo Lourido, (et alii), Hastoria xeral de Galicia, Vigo, Ed.A Nosa Terra, 1997, p.35).

Is it useful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

6 - Source : Memo.fr (French historical site)

http://www.memo.fr/article.asp?ID=ANT_CEL_001#Som1

http://www.memo.fr/article.asp?ID=ANT_CEL_000

''It is not certain that significant population movements have always occurred [in the areas where archaeological material has been found]. Some authors admit, for example, a Celtic presence in the Iberian Peninsula from 800 BC. They rely for this on rather vague written sources and ask the score of place names ending in –briga, suffix regarded as typically Celtic, meaning “fortress” [though it remains controversial – see source 16]. The origin of these names remains InDate. Moreover, the oldest objects which can be undoubtedly linked with the north-Alpine celtic culture, are in fact dated from around 250 BC. If there has been “celtization” [in Iberia], it seems to have been late and limited.''

Is it useful to comment ? --Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

7 - Source : Raimund Karl (University of Wales) – Journal of Interdisciplinary celtic studies (vol.5) – p.3-4

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol5/5_1/karl_5_1.pdf

= distribution of the archaeological founds of the Celtic chariots : from Scotland to Bulgaria, by NE France. No evidence in Spain or Portugal.

Just read the source : no chariot in Iberia, even not in Italy.--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

8 - Source : Oppida.org (recognized and supported by U.E.)

http://www.oppida.org/fic_bdd/programme_pdf_en_fichier/12186182680_PlaquetteOppida.pdf

= Map of the celtic oppida (according to Sephan Fichtl – 2000)

Is it useful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

9 - Source : INRAP (public archaeological office in France)

http://www.inrap.fr/userdata/c_bloc_file/6/6921/6712_fichier_dossier20-guichard.pdf

= map of the celtic oppida according to Stephan Fichtl – 2000

Is it useful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

10 - Source : Georges Dottin – Manuel pour server à l’étude de l’antiquité celtique (“Manual to help in the studies of Celtic antiquity”)

http://www.archive.org/stream/manuelpourservir00dottuoft/manuelpourservir00dottuoft_djvu.txt

Regarding in –briga toponyms in the Iberian peninsula : ''A number of these names presenting a variant form –brica instead of –briga, it is possible that the areas with –brica endings were originally ending in –briga. This is the case for : Adro-brica in Spain (Mêla, III, I, i3) ; Amallo-brica upon the Duero [Itin. Ant. 435, i] ; Cento-brica in Celtiberia (Valère Maxime, V, i, 5) ; Abo-brica in the Gileni people (Plin. Hist. nat. IV, 34, 112). '''Most of the first terms of the names ending with –briga in the Iberian peninsula do not seem Celtic. Therefore, they would be formed posteriorly to the domination of the Celts.'

Is it useful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

11 - Source : Massimo Guidetti – Storia del Mediterraneo nell’antichità : 9.-1. secolo a.C (p.141)

http://books.google.fr/books?id=EsHpFVsP0uwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22massimo+guidetti%22+%22storia+del+%22&source=bl&ots=KoOn8ICFgk&sig=cPvixN9dnTBe1rNlJ2Rd_jiPPqY&hl=fr&ei=lPBJTLWLG8eOjAeBmIjYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

In function of the apparent distribution of Indo-European languages outside the scope of the invaders of urnfields and the inability to identify a La Tène culture in Spain, which is worldwide recognized as the footprint of the Celtic world, scepticism was born among Spanish researchers about the possibility of solving the celtic problem in Spain.

Is it useful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

12 - Source : hsozkult site (p.2)

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2005-4-070.pdf

''A particular case can be said for the iberic celts in the whole of the concept, because of their low importance in the History. The antic authors have not seen them as real Celts, almost unuseful in their texts.''

Is it useful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

13 - Source : Wilhem de Humboldt (quoted by Euglene François Achille Rosseeuw Saint-Hilaire in “Histoire d’Espagne : depuis l’invasion des Gothes jusqu’au commencement du 19ème siècle) – p.33

http://books.google.fr/books?id=YF5BAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Histoire+d%27Espagne:+depuis+l%27invasion+des+Gothes&source=bl&ots=ZFPlF06SWJ&sig=Ue_MG3U_YrnvgDFU7OJBAauIYzI&hl=fr&ei=h_VJTIPuLZGUjAe9sI3YDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wilhelm de Humboldt notes that the term of « celtici » is different of the name of « celtae » : the first could refer to a latin adjective (meaning the people of the celtic region = hold by the celts), while the second could refer to ethnic tribes.

'''Not a conclusion, I agree. But an serious indication.'''--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

14 - Source : schule.salzburg.at (Austrian-irish scholar project)

http://schule.salzburg.at/methoden/unterricht/kelten_2000/keltenbuch.htm

There is historical evidence of druids in Ireland, Britain and Gaul…We have no direct confirmation of druids in the Celtic settlements of Spain, Italy, Galatia, and the Danube Valley.

Is it usfeful to comment ?--Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

15 - Source : Hector Iglesias - "Portuguese, Galician, Asturian and Pyrenean toponyms - affinities and historical-linguistical problematic" - p.5

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/45/46/PDF/artxiker_TOPONYMES_PORTUGAIS.pdf

"Specialist now believe that the Celtic peoples, were not only a minority in Galicia at the arrival of the Romans, but, moreover, that their influence on the region would ultimately have been very limited : they would set up a small oligarchy Military and it even seems, according to Ramon Marino Paz (Marino Paz, 1998, p.28), that when Roman came, their language was already in extinction. According to Johannes Hubschmid (Humschmid, 1960, p.149) at the time of romanization, the Celtic had little presence in Hispania or at least strongly formed by elements of pre-indo-european and it is even possible that the pre-indo-european languages were majority. Alain Tranoy stresses that the population of Galicia had to be formed from an important pre-celtic background. For some authors, he says, "the Callaeci would have stayed out of these Indo-european waves and would rather represent a growing people of the late Bronze Age (Tranoy, 1981, p.53)".

The source gives many toponyms of NW Spain which are apparented to the Basque Country toponyms. Among them, the proper name of Galicia, which refers to the near relief region. This last is confirmed by J.J.Moralejo ( http://verbaescrita.blogspot.com/2009/10/galiza-galicia-y-el-nacimiento-de-un.html ).

Is it useful to comment ? --Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

16 - Source : Atlas of the Celtic World, by John Haywood; London Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2001, pp.30-37.

http://faculty.mville.edu/justing/maps.htm#La%20Tène%20Culture%20in%20Central%20Europe

Iberic peninsula is not concerned by the principal archaeological criteria which defin the Celtic heritage.

Iberia is not in the core area of Hallstatt. --Sleeping water (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

17 - Beatriz Díaz Santana - searcher in the University of Madrid

http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/numero4_1/articulo4_1_diazsantana.html

The scientist avoids peremptory pronouncements, but remains very skeptical about the emergence of Celtic feeling "Galicia" and about its scientific justifications.

--Sleeping water (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have comments, objections or anything else sourced (and not only free assertions), I'm ready to read you.--Sleeping water (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One at a time, for pity's sake! This style of copy and paste ranting is of no use whatsoever as it's difficult to sit down and address all your points at once. Several of them can be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous. The distribution map of Oppidia, for instance, is utterly useless as evidence of absence of 'celticity'. While no Oppidia are marked for Spain, neither are any for Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall,... were they not Celtic either? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "One at a time"

Why should I post one, while i have about 20 ?


 * "Several of them can be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous."

If you are talking about the map of oppida (Stefan Fichtl), those are 2 different and official sources : INRAP and Oppida.org. Both are official institutions (french for the first, european for the second).


 * "The distribution map of Oppidia, for instance, is utterly useless as evidence of absence of 'celticity'."

Yes. But it is an indication. And I remind you that some users consider the antic Iberia as a Celtic region partly because of archaeological evidences. This map proves that these last are very thin, like I said. So, it is not my own conclusion.


 * "While no Oppidia are marked for Spain, neither are any for Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall,... were they not Celtic either?"

Already answered. Personaly, like many authors, archaeological material is not sufficient enough to qualify a region as Celtic, since technics can cross several different cultures. There is already a debate about it above in the talk page...--Sleeping water (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I post one, while i have about 20 ?

You only have 19 now, and the chariot burials plea can be similarly dismissed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a basic informal logical fallacy. See Argument from ignorance for explanation. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Picking another at random... number 4. You seriously expect people to accept your suggestion that an amateur historian's web page (data wales) is a reliable source??? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Examining the "Sources"
Let's start with the 'low hanging fruit':


 * D1 - The same source includes a map very similar to Dbachmann's map - http://www.maproom.org/00/01/present.php?m=0004 - thereby validating it


 * D4 - As pointed out by Catfish Jim, above this is an amateur site, and is not used as a source in Welsh People, but as an external link.


 * D7 - You repeatedly state that you believe that the language of the majority is the only indicator of the presence of a 'people' or 'culture' - why then, in this (your) logic is the presence or absence of chariots relevant? You can't have it both ways.  Likewise oppida - but we'll get to that in a moment.  Again, consider the cases Ireland and Scotland for chariots.


 * D8, D9 - Your sources on 'Celtic Oppida' in Iberia, or lack thereof, are in fact studies on 'pre-Roman urban sites of temperate Europe' (D7) and one on oppida in transalpine Europe - there are no Iberian oppida shown in these sources because Iberia is outside the scope of the studies. In other words, these sources are completely irrelevant to the current discussion.


 * D14 - A collaborative secondary school project conducted by teenagers from Ireland and Austria is not a reliable academic source.


 * D16 - It has already been established that Haywood's maps clearly show 1) Iberia within the Halstatt area, and 2) Iberia as a Celtic-speaking region, shaded orange to indicate a later date of Celticization than the blue areas.


 * Straight away, seven sources can be refuted. I'll start on the others in a little while.


 * Gabhala (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A detailed analysis of place-names in ancient Cantabria shows a strong Celtic element along with an almost equally strong "Para-Celtic" element (both Indo-European) and thus disproves the idea of a substantial pre-Indo-European or Basque presence in the region. Jembana (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Next group - I'm not sure what the links mean on these, perhaps someone else could have a look, and give their thoughts:


 * D5 - When I follow the link, and try to reach P.180 (the cited page), I get a banner "Les pages 171 a 236 ne font pas partie de la section consultable" - I assume this means I need to subscribe or such to unlock those pages...


 * D11 - Is in Italian. I have about zero Italian, so I'm not going to give myself a headache trying to work through it

These, however, I have been able to have a look at:


 * D2 - Shows Senones in Italy, and Celtiberi in Iberia - this is yet another example of circular logic - you are using your basic assumption as proof of itself. This map is also a 'point in time' map, and is all but irrelevant against the context of a diachronic map.


 * D10 - Despite being almost 100 years old, you have included this source - you haven't provided a page reference for your quote, but I found pages 15 & 16 interesting: "Les Celtici, sont les Celtes etablis au nord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Betique. Les Celtiberi, sont les Celtes, melanges aux Iberes, qui peuplaient l'Espagne, des sources du Guadiana a celles du Quadalquivir". Whatever your interpretation of the statement on the Celtiberians, the author clearly places a Celtic presence in Iberia.  Personally (not being a native French speaker - so I'm open to correction), I think "Les Celtiberi sont les Celtes..." suggests a significant Celtic identity.


 * D12 - Seems to be a summary or review of a book by the Scottish author Angus Konstam. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a 'reliable source' - again, I'm open to correction, but surely the original book would be a better source, since it eliminates the chance of the reviewers drawing their own conclusions?


 * D13 - First, the source is titled "History of Spain: from the Gothic invasion to the start of the 19th Century" - how is that relevant to the question of the Celts in Iberia? Further, you cite P. 33 - that page seems to deal with a battle involving Berbers, and I found no reference to anything even vaguely Celtic on that page.  Then, there is the question of why Latin adjectives would have any effect on Greek writers - the presence of the 'Keltiki' was attested in Greek sources.


 * D15 - Accuracy of the source aside, part of the quote you supply actually contradicts your whole argument: Alain Tranoy stresses that the population of Galicia had to be formed from an important pre-celtic background. For some authors, he says, "the Callaeci would have stayed out of these Indo-european waves and would rather represent a growing people of the late Bronze Age". What 'waves' would those be, I wonder?


 * Gabhala (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

D. 10 it says the Celtici are celts who live in north-west Spain, the Celtiberi celts mixed with iberians who occupy a significant part of Spain Cunibertus (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little unclear on this, due to limited familiarity with the nuances of French - 'who mixed with iberians who occupy a significant part of Spain ' - does the second 'who' refer to the Celts or Iberians, or the CeltIberians? In any case, regardless - the author places Celts in NW Spain (Galicia?), South of Lusitania (Algarve?), and in Andalusia - a Celtic presence in Iberia.

Gabhala (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

''Les Celtici, sont les Celtes etablis au nord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Betique. Les Celtiberi, sont les Celtes, melanges aux Iberes, qui peuplaient l'Espagne, des sources du Guadiana a celles du Quadalquivir''. The Celtici are those celts settled in north-west Spain, south of Lusitania and in Baetica. The Celtiberians are celts, mixed with iberians, that populate Spain from the head of the river Guadiana to that of the river Guadalqivir.

Personally I guess this is based on outdated studies, from 40 to 100 years ago afaik the Celtici were a tribe of the Celtiberians (not considered as a single and specific tribe as also was, but as a general term for the celtic populations of Spain) who lived in lands once a time part of the non-indo-european Tartessos culture

see the maps

Map 1 The Celtiberi Tribe - capital Numantia

Map 2 The different tribes and peoples - celts in light blue and other indoeuropeans in deep blue

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iberia_300BC.svg



Cunibertus (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Etruria Padana
http://spazioinwind.libero.it/popoli_antichi/Etruschi/Etruria%20Padana.html

http://spazioinwind.libero.it/popoli_antichi/archeo-etruschi.html

the etrurian settlement corresponds essentially to Emilia Romagna and the Villanovan culture

http://www.palazzotraversa.it/images/phocagallery/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_9_1.jpg

http://www3.unibo.it/archeologia/marzabotto/immagini/foto/inantico/etrupadF.jpg

the Emilian Apennines were populated by ligurians and the Emilian lowlands by a mix of etruscans and italics, the etruscan interest in the area from the 6th century BC was essentially limited to trading, around 475-450 BC they were yet fighting celts in the Po Valley

http://www.canino.info/inserti/monografie/etruschi/etruschi_po/bologna/stele.jpg

Cunibertus (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "You only have 19 now"

About 20. I am sure that you are able to develop far better arguments. Yes, I am sure, don't disappoint me.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Picking another at random... number 4. You seriously expect people to accept your suggestion that an amateur historian's web page (data wales) is a reliable source???"

Read all the title : "Source : Data-whales – reliable source since used in the page “Welsh people”"

About the fact that the source could not be considered as reliable, I could agree with you. But you will have to answer me why this source should be reliable in the page "Welsh people" (see External links) and not here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_people

--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The same source includes a map very similar to Dbachmann's map "

Wrong. The iberic peninsula is not coloured in your link. There is an arrow which indicates only migration, like I have purposed. --Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D4 - As pointed out by Catfish Jim, above this is an amateur site, and is not used as a source in Welsh People, but as an external link."

Already answered. Maybe right, but you will have to debate with the users of the Welsh people page, now...--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "why then, in this (your) logic is the presence or absence of chariots relevant?"

Relevant to illustrate this assertion :"due to this thin heritage and according to those numerous authors". If there is thin heritage of Celtic archaeologic material and no evidence of majority language, what does it remains to qualify those regions as "Celtic" ?--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Your sources on 'Celtic Oppida'...are in fact studies on 'pre-Roman urban sites of temperate Europe' (D7) and one on oppida in transalpine Europe - there are no Iberian oppida shown in these sources because Iberia is outside the scope of the studies."

Completely wrong. Explanations :


 * the title of the map : Répartition géographique des oppida répondant au modèle défini par Joseph Déchelette d'après St.Fichtl = Geographical distribution of the oppidant matching to the defined model by Joseph Déchelette according to St.Fichtl. Where is it about "temperate Europe" ?
 * For the English translation, you have misunderstood the text (I know because there is a French translation) : What was swept away in Northern Europe was itself a dynamic indigenous culture extending across the transalpine landmass, usually known today as that of the Celts. The proto-urban Oppida – a Latin word used by Julius Caesar himself – remain one of the most striking manifestations of this pre- Roman northern European civilization. These sites developed in Europe at the end of the 1st millenium BC. Located to the North of the Alps, they extend between Southern Britain to the West and Hungary to the East."

The text does not say that the study concerns the regions northern of the Alps. It says that the oppida have developped northern of the Alps (see the bold text). Not the same thing. Nice try though...--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D14 - A collaborative secondary school project conducted by teenagers from Ireland and Austria is not a reliable academic source."

Well, teenagers who have probably received lessons or read some books. If such an assertion is present on the page about druidic culture, I guess that they have found it somewhere. But in the aim to be rigorous, I give you this one. Maybe if I have time enough, I will make a dissection of the current sources. You will have to explain me for example why there are paragraphs about the genetics (Celts could be recognized by genetic features ?). --Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D16 - It has already been established that Haywood's maps clearly show 1) Iberia within the Halstatt area"

Wrong. Hallstatt core is on the second map, and Iberia is outside. If I don't mistake (because it is difficult to read the legend), the map that you refer (the last) speaks about migrations and "influences" of Hallstatt. Not the same : influence of a culture is not the "culture".--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "2) Iberia as a Celtic-speaking region"

It is about Celting-speaking nowhere --Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  "shaded orange to indicate a later date of Celticization than the blue areas."

Not really : the legend of the orange-colored areas is about "expansion", a synonym of migrations, like I have said.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Straight away, seven sources can be refuted. "

No, just one (and two if you arrive to revert the n° 4 in the Welsh people page).--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "A detailed analysis of place-names in ancient Cantabria shows a strong Celtic element along with an almost equally strong "Para-Celtic" element (both Indo-European) and thus disproves the idea of a substantial pre-Indo-European or Basque presence in the region"


 * 1)  I have already said that toponymy is not a proof : we have a lot of Celtic toponyms in SW France, and this area is not considered as "Celtic". We have a lot of Scandinavian toponyms in Normandy, but this region has never been a Scandinavian language region. In a larger scale, we have hundreds of Germanic toponyms in France, we have them even in southern regions. This does not mean that France has spoken a Germanic language in early medieval times. In which language must I say it ? I don't want to sink an academical source, but saying p.20 that "This toponymic study suggests that before the Roman conquest, Cantabria was largely celtophone" tells a lot about the credibility of the author : do you think that inhabitants of Northern France (Normandy, Picardy, Champagne, Lorraine...) have one day spoken a Germanic language ?
 * 2) Your source is academic, I don't contest. But it is said at the page 13 of the document that "the study of toponyms reveals no trace of it [pre-indo-european toponyms]." So, how can you explain that in the source D/15, the author finds a lot of non-celtic toponyms (examples in all the document) ? And your source quote another author, A.Tovar (he might me academical too). Your source seems to be a little "isolated". --Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "When I follow the link, and try to reach P.180 (the cited page), I get a banner "Les pages 171 a 236 ne font pas partie de la section consultable""

Probably because you have rolled the pages one by one or two slowly. For me, the page is readable. Try to get directly in the low-middle of the ascensor.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D11 - Is in Italian. I have about zero Italian, so I'm not going to give myself a headache trying to work through it"

It is a source however. Try maybe a translator.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ''"D2 - Shows Senones in Italy, and Celtiberi in Iberia"

Don't make if you were not understanding : the proportions have nothing to do with the current map.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "you are using your basic assumption as proof of itself.

Do you really want me to count the number of your assumptions as proof of themselves ? This is a map published by an academical author, that's all.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "This map is also a 'point in time' map, and is all but irrelevant against the context of a diachronic map."

Wrong. The title is "Celts in III Century BC"...Exactly like the current map (275 BC), but with a complete different distribution.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D10 - Despite being almost 100 years old, you have included this source - you haven't provided a page reference for your quote, but I found pages 15 & 16 interesting: "Les Celtici, sont les Celtes etablis au nord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Betique. Les Celtiberi, sont les Celtes, melanges aux Iberes, qui peuplaient l'Espagne, des sources du Guadiana a celles du Quadalquivir". Whatever your interpretation of the statement on the Celtiberians, the author clearly places a Celtic presence in Iberia."

I did not find your quote (neither the "pages" 15-16), but another one close (but different) : "Il nomme les Celtici voisins des Tardeiani (3), et raconte les guerres des Celtibères avec les Romains (4) . Le territoire des Celtibères s'étendait de Sagonte (Murviedro) aux  source del'Anas (Guadiarîa) et du Baetis (Guadalquivir) (5)". It means : '''Polybe names "Celtici" the neighbours of the Tardeini, and talks about the romans wars againt the Celtiberian. The territory of the Celtiberians was extended from Sagonte..."''' It is nowhere said that the Celts were the dominant culture.


 * "the author clearly places a Celtic presence in Iberia."

Are you really able to follow a discussion ? You repeat always the same arguments : I never contested a Celtic presence in Spain, I have only said that they did not printed their culture. That's why we can not speak about "Celtic culture" or "Celtic people" in Iberia like the map or the text of the current article say.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D12 - Seems to be a summary or review of a book by the Scottish author Angus Konstam. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a 'reliable source'"

It is a specialized review destined to historians, not a tabloid ("Communication and Information Services for Historians"). It has many academical partners, like the University of Berlin ( http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/index.asp?type=informationen&name=kooperationspartner&pn=about ).--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "13 - First, the source is titled "History of Spain: from the Gothic invasion to the start of the 19th Century"...Then, there is the question of why Latin adjectives would have any effect on Greek writers - the presence of the 'Keltiki' was attested in Greek sources."

Probably a technical problem of insert : I hope this (same) link will be better (see p.33, notes at the bottom of the page). The historian talks about the pre-gothic era. Don't ask me why.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=KF5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22Wilhelm+de+Humboldt+%22+%22celtici%22&source=bl&ots=RkIcXINTmp&sig=NmjUC6edhU9CoCsZ7R1KksWE8m0&hl=fr&ei=8allTOKkLNWRjAfCoOTWCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Wilhelm%20de%20Humboldt%20%22%20%22celtici%22&f=false

--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D15 - Accuracy of the source aside, part of the quote you supply actually contradicts your whole argument: Alain Tranoy stresses that the population of Galicia had to be formed from an important pre-celtic background. For some authors, he says, "the Callaeci would have stayed out of these Indo-european waves and would rather represent a growing people of the late Bronze Age". What 'waves' would those be, I wonder?"

Do you want a lesson of English ? This is not my mother language :


 * the Callaeci = the antic Galicians people
 * "had to be formed from an preceltic background" = they didn't belong to a celtic background
 * to stay out = to be outside of
 * the Callaeci stayed out = the antic Galicians were outside of
 * these indo-european waves = the indo-european waves who have migrated in Europe (Celts for who we are talking)
 * Result = the background of the antic Galician people (or culture) was formed out of the regions which have been concerned by the Celtic waves

In fact, the quoted author is more "extremist" than me : he denies the Celtic presence in NW Spain.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  "I'm still a little unclear on this, due to limited familiarity with the nuances of French - 'who mixed with iberians who occupy a significant part of Spain' - does the second 'who' refer to the Celts or Iberians, or the CeltIberians?"

See above. I can't answer you, because your quote is probably wrong. I agree that the study is ancient, but it remains interesting, pointing that the so-called celtic toponyms in Spain could be not so. Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ''Map 1 The Celtiberi Tribe - capital Numantia

"Map 2 The different tribes and peoples - celts in light blue and other indoeuropeans in deep blue''

See the map : http://www.emersonkent.com/images/germanic_roman_526.jpg

OK. Now, thanks to this kind of map, we know that Italian and Spanish people were Germanic in the early Middle-age.--Sleeping water (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

 * D1 - An arrow leads from Celtic Gaul into an area consisting of all but the eastern and southern coastal areas of Iberia, defined by blue hatching and labelled 'Celtiberians'.


 * D4 - The source is not used as a reference for any of the content of the article - it is a link in the 'External Links' section - i.e. it has been inserted by a user as a site for further reading. I have no interest in policing the External Links of pages on wikipedia, other than to remove blatant commercial advertising whenever I happen to notice it.  There are plenty of editors for whom that is a major concern, and I typically leaave it to them.


 * D8/D9 - On D8, in the red banner, under the photo, the title of the study is clearly stated. If you want to cite Fichtl, then cite Fichtl on oppida in Iberia, not on transalpine oppida


 * D14 - Why do they mention 'racial' evidence - precisely because they are not experts on the subject, and are teenagers working on a project which has the very obvious aim of establishing a common link between the children of Austria and Ireland.


 * D16 - Read the legends - both maps: Blue line = "Influence of Halstatt Culture c. 500 BC"; On the last map: Blue shading = "Probable Celtic Speaking Areas 6th Century BC"; Orange = " Expansion by 400 BC"; Green = " Expansion by 275 BC".  In context, "expansion" can only refer to "the expansion of the probable Celtic speaking areas" - it hardly refers to "expansion of areas where Ford automobiles were selling well", now, does it?


 * D2 - There is a big difference between a 'snapshot' map of 275 BC and a diachronic map to 275 BC. I suggest that you spend some time on understanding this, since this seems to be a major falling point in this discussion.


 * D10 - Following your source, as you linked it, on the bottom of P15, continuing onto P16, my quote is there exactly. Actually, I correct myself - when I follow your link, I get random ASCII (Unicode? - like it makes a difference) characters - but it I click on the title, then 'Read Online', I get the text of "Manuel pour servir a l'etude de l'antiquite celtique", and there on the pages I cite, is my quote. Or is this a case (like D13), where you linked the wrong source - please provide a page number for your assertion.


 * D12 - As for D4, this isn't something I can decide, but as for D8/D9 - cite the original source. It seems (insofar as I can tell) Konstam never published that particular book outside Austria.


 * D13 - Thank you for the correction - I'll respond once I've had a chance to review it.


 * D15 - So - the point of this source is that: NW Spain (Galicia) avoided the waves of Celtic influence that (according to your point of view) never influenced any of the Iberian peninsula. Who approved that research grant - seriously, I want to know...


 * Gabhala (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdulorum_Oppida
 * 2) The sites in central Spain are less well known and studied; they contrast with the generally smaller Iberian towns of the east and south and the hillforts of the western and northern Iberian Peninsula. Their histories are longer than those of temperate Europe, with sites such as Las Cogotas and La Mesa de Miranda (Ávila) starting as early as the fifth century B.C. A small number of sites figure in the Carthaginian and Roman conflicts: Salamanca (Salamantica) was captured by the Carthaginian general Hannibal in 220 B.C., and Numantia near Soria was the scene of a siege by the Roman general Scipio Africanus in 133 B.C. Typically, these sites consist of two or three defended enclosures with elaborate entrances and large enclosure areas (e.g., La Mesa de Miranda, at 30 hectares; Las Cogotas, at 14.5 hectares; and Ulaca, at 80 hectares). The latter site contains many small stone and double houses, usually with a single room but occasionally with three or four rooms, but there are also ceremonial and religious structures. The associated cemeteries contain some rich burials with weapons and fine bronze jewelry, but the very rich aristocratic burials found in northern Gaul generally are absent, suggesting a less hierarchical society.

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/aneu_02/aneu_02_00146.html


 * 1) map 1 you could simply put it as celtic speaking in light blue and indo-european speaking peoples in dark blue - a nation is defined by its language and culture so they were celts and other indo-europeans


 * 1) OK. Now, thanks to this kind of map, we know that Italian and Spanish people were Germanic in the early Middle-age.--Sleeping water - in Italy they were only around the 5% of the population

Cunibertus (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Oppida Question
The relevance of the question to the current discussion aside, I have to confess that I was intrigued with the question of why, with so many castros and citanias evidencing the move toward urbanization in Iberia, are oppida-sized cities in scarce supply by comparison with transalpine Europe?

It turns out that the answer is surprisingly simple. I haven't yet managed to find a copy of the text of Stephan Fichtl's book on the subject, but the overview on Google books mentioned that the urbanization phenomenon, as defined by Fichtl, occurred in transalpine Europe between 150 BC and 15 AD. An overview such as this is obviously not a reliable source, but both D7 and D8 provided by SleepingWater more or less bear this out - D7 putting it at the end of the 1st Millenium BC, and D8 at the extreme end of the Iron Age - 1st and 2nd centuries BC. Further, in The Celtic World (P. 64), Cunliffe places the start of the oppida 'trend' at the end of the 2nd century BC, spreading to Britain during the 1st century AD.

So, then, why not Iberia? Simply put, because the Roman invasion of Iberia began in 219 BC - more than 150 years before the first transalpine oppida started to appear.

Gabhala (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ''"D1 - An arrow leads from Celtic Gaul into an area consisting of all but the eastern and southern coastal areas of Iberia, defined by blue hatching and labelled 'Celtiberians'."

''

Like you have said, it is "blue hatching" and not blue. There is no legend, so everything is possible. If D/1 shows Iberia outside the Celtic core, we must admit that for the Historical Atlas, Iberia is in a particular case. Like I said, I would speak rather about "influence" than "culture", like the hatches seem to show. About the concept of Celtiberian, I have already comment (see C/ and all the talk page).--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "::D4 - The source is not used as a reference for any of the content of the article"

I leave it (excepted if I find later the source of the map). That makes 2...out of about 20.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D8/D9 - On D8, in the red banner, under the photo, the title of the study is clearly stated. If you want to cite Fichtl, then cite Fichtl on oppida in Iberia, not on transalpine oppida"

No. The title says : "the pre-Roman urbansites of temperate Europe". It does not mean that the study concerns only "temperate Europe". It means that the subject of the institution, the oppida, concern de facto only "temperate Europe", just because oppida can be found only northern of the Alps. It would be like a site called "pyramids.org", and with a title "the pyramids of Egypt" : this would not mean that the study wanted to be restricted to Egypt, but that pyramids can de facto be found only in Egypt.

By the way, this point proves what I said : beyond the Garonne and the Alps, Celtic heritage is very thin. As I know, there are no ones in Italy ; and do not talk to me about the culture of the castros, I've already answered.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D14 - Why do they mention 'racial' evidence - precisely because they are not experts on the subject, and are teenagers working on a project which has the very obvious aim of establishing a common link between the children of Austria and Ireland."

You did not understand : I was talking about the current article page, where I can found in the notes 54 and 55 an in all the paragraph "Insular Celts" genetic references. Which is very surprising, while we are talking about culture, even more...--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D16...Blue shading = "Probable Celtic Speaking Areas 6th Century BC"; Orange = " Expansion by 400 BC"

It's OK (though the term "probably" means that the author did not dig the subject). I leave it. That makes 3.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D2 - There is a big difference between a 'snapshot' map of 275 BC and a diachronic map to 275 BC. I suggest that you spend some time on understanding this, since this seems to be a major falling point in this discussion."

What are you talking about ? The current map says "maximal Celtic expansion by 275 BC", the D2 map says in III century. The map in D2 is academical, like the Haywood's one, full stop.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D10 - Following your source, as you linked it, on the bottom of P15, continuing onto P16, my quote is there exactly."

No. First, there is no "page 15" on this link, like in almost all the documents of archive.org. Second, I used my search motor of my browser to find the words of your quote. I did not find. The only paragraph which is closed, but not the same is the one I have quoted (a number of page appears just above, it should be 403). Try to do the same with the word "celtici" which appears few times in the page. --Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D12...as for D8/D9 - cite the original source."

Already done in the review : Angus Konstam --Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "It seems (insofar as I can tell) Konstam never published that particular book outside Austria."

This is a Scottish author who has published many books in several languages. I did not search if this book is published only in Austria, and I won't because, first, the titles of the books can change from a country to another one, and second, this changes nothing to the academical feature of the source. --Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "D15 - So - the point of this source is that: NW Spain (Galicia) avoided the waves of Celtic influence that (according to your point of view) never influenced any of the Iberian peninsula."

No. Alain Trannoy is just a quoted author by Hector Iglesias, the author of the source. For this last, the iberic peninsula toponymy reveals a strong pre-indo-european found, far more numerous than Celtic ones (and once again, toponymy is not a proof). --Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Who approved that research grant - seriously, I want to know..."

Who would approve a searcher who would say that some Celtic toponyms should reveal generalized celtophony (like your canadian source) - seriously, I want to know... --Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The sites in central Spain are less well known and studied...suggesting a less hierarchical society."

There is no evidence of Celtic oppida in Portugal. In the wikilink of Turdulorum, there is no source.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ''" in Italy they were only around the 5% of the population"

'' It was ironic. An antic political map does not mean cultural map. Gothic peoples were the masters of Southern Europe, and they could have given their name to these regions, this would not have meaned that those regions were Germanic culture.--Sleeping water (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "So, then, why not Iberia? Simply put, because the Roman invasion of Iberia began in 219 BC - more than 150 years before the first transalpine oppida started to appear."

No. There is no source to link the roman expansion and the oppida developpement. --Sleeping water (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, on the issue of D10 - the actual version you link to is a scanned text version - I had been using scanned images of the pages, as explained above. Due to scanning errors, the text of the quote I link has been rendered as 

Les KeXti/.oi (var. Kil-.rJ.) Celiici, sont les Celtes établis au Dord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Bétiquc in the version you have linked. Please use the scanned images version to identify the page for your quote, rather than a rather vague description of the position of the slider bar.


 * On the oppida question, no one is linking roman expansion and oppida - you seem to be misunderstanding the point. The Celts built no oppida in Iberia, because by the time any Celts, anywhere, began building oppida, Iberia had been under Roman control for over 150 years.  This seems to be linked to the difficulty you seem to have in understanding the difference between a map of a point in time and a diachronic map.


 * The point Alain Trannoy is making in the quote, nonetheless, is that he thinks Galicia was unaffected by the indo-european (i.e. Celtic) waves, therefore, by implication, other areas nearby were not.


 * I'm a little confused by what you mean by 'your Canadian source' - I don't think I provided any Canadian sources - unless I'm misremembering, I've been sticking to the sources you supplied.


 * Regarding Konstam, an actual quote of what he wrote is a reliable source, a third-party review or summary of his work, is (in my opinion, at least) not.

Gabhala (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "It would be like a site called "pyramids.org", and with a title "the pyramids of Egypt" : this would not mean that the study wanted to be restricted to Egypt, but that pyramids can de facto be found only in Egypt. " - well, this interesting example only strenghtens my point - see Pyramid. In any case, it's a moot point since Iberia was under Roman control by the time the Celts started building oppida.


 * On D10, I found your quote on Page 441. That particular source has a lot to say about Celts and Iberia - I'll comment more once I've had a chance to read more of it

Gabhala (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Some questions Fichl poses the origins of the oppidum to the 13th century but it evolved and was built in significant numbers only centuries later, Villar writes that hill-forts are simply a common indo-european cultural characteristics, and that of course in Spain there weren't very many -Dunn (e.g. Verdu and Verdun) as simply Spain wasn't enough urbanized and there were yet hundreds of smaller hill-forts known as -briga. as celts didn't wrote we have informations about the matter mostly from modern research which agrees that from a military point of view oppida were built to face the 1. german 2. roman and 3. dacian menace - but the real reason of them was simply in the urban development of Gallia who was just urbanizing in that period with the born of real walled cities as existed in the rest of the civilized world Cunibertus (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) what do you mean by "oppidum" ? there had been many forms of it - may be the gallic one ?
 * 2) what is the importance of it ?


 * I am referring to the Celtic oppida as found in transalpine Europe, and the importance is that SleepingWater has asserted that the lack of comparable Celtic urban centres in Iberia is evidence that the Celtic presence there was therefore not significant. As I pointed out above, the relative absence of Celtic oppida in Iberia can be explained by the fact that the peninsula was under Roman control long before the Celts began urbanizing on that scale in temperate Europe.  As you correctly point out above, the evolution from hill-forts to oppida came about as a confluence of military and administrative requirements.  Obviously, a different set of conditions would have applied in Iberia a century and a half earlier, resulting in a different degree of urbanization.  The lack of Celtic presence in the area around the Pyrenees and Aquitaine would obviously mean that the Celts in Iberia would be developing at a different rate, and quite probably in a different direction from their cousins in the rest of Europe.

Gabhala (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Gabhala (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what you are referring to: "[§44] [154] Some years later another serious war broke out in Spain for the following reason: Segeda, a large and powerful city of a Celtiberian tribe called the Belli, was included in the treaties made by Gracchus. It persuaded some of the smaller towns to settle in its own borders, and then surrounded itself with a wall seven kilometers in circumference. It also forced the Titthi, a neighboring tribe, to join in the undertaking. When the Senate learned this, it forbade the building of the wall, demanded the tribute imposed by Gracchus, and ordered the inhabitants to furnish a contingent for the Roman army, for this was one of the stipulations of the treaty made with Gracchus. As to the wall the Celtiberians replied that they were forbidden by Gracchus to build new cities, but not forbidden to fortify existing ones." (Appian's History of Rome: The Spanish Wars-The Second Celtiberian War). Strabo ( book III chap.3) also says that the romans reduced most of the lusitanian cities "to mere villages". North western castros have specific characteristics one is the existence of saunas and they are specific to the castro culture. This is the sudy of about 100 oppida although not all known are included, very few they get as big as 100 Ha .There are also traditions (e.g.lusitanian) many small size castros near metal ore mines(conheiras) related to the development of castros. 89.214.252.136 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Les KeXti/.oi (var. Kil-.rJ.) Celiici, sont les Celtes établis au Dord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Bétiquc"

OK, I saw it. But it does not change anything : saying that Celtic tribes (the "Celtici") have been established in Spain, does not mean that they have printed their culture.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Celts built no oppida in Iberia, because by the time any Celts, anywhere, began building oppida, Iberia had been under Roman control for over 150 years."

This is wrong. Many oppida are older than you say. Manching oppidum has been founded in the 3th century BC or before, like the Mediomatriques oppidum of Metz. The oppidum of Amboise has been founded in the 4th Century BC, and probably many others...By the way, your assertion remains an original conclusion.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "This seems to be linked to the difficulty you seem to have in understanding the difference between a map of a point in time and a diachronic map."

No. I know what the term "diachronic" means (it is the same word in French). But the current map says in the legend that the maximal extension of the "Celtic people" reaches SW Spain by the 3th Century BC, while another source (Villa's map) says the contrary about the same period.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The point Alain Trannoy is making in the quote, nonetheless, is that he thinks Galicia was unaffected by the indo-european (i.e. Celtic) waves, therefore, by implication, other areas nearby were not."

I'm not sure to understand you. If by "other areas", you mean the rest of the Iberic peninsula and Southern France, yes. When I have said that Trannoy denied any presence, it was obviously a summarize. But the both authors (Tranoy and Iglesias) are on the same line : Celtic heritage in Spain is too thin to let us putting a text or a map using the expressions "Celtic peoples" or "Celtic languages" for this region.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "I don't think I provided any Canadian sources"

It was a Jembana's source. But it changes nothing : saying that some toponyms in a territory are a proof of a celtophony for this territory is completely unprofessional (see Germanic toponyms in France).--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Regarding Konstam, an actual quote of what he wrote is a reliable source, a third-party review or summary of his work, is (in my opinion, at least) not."

Already answered : it is not a tabloid or a blog, but a specialized review, recognized by universities. There are many ones used as sources in the wiki.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "well, this interesting example only strenghtens my point"

I don't see in which way. If you mean that there are pyramids in China or Northern America too, it is maybe right, but they come not from the same cultures...like the roman oppida are not the same oppida as the Celtic ones.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "In any case, it's a moot point since Iberia was under Roman control by the time the Celts started building oppida."

No, it is wrong according to the chronology of the oppida, and this conclusion is too original to be accepted.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "what do you mean by "oppidum" ? there had been many forms of it - may be the gallic one ?"

Celtic one.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fichl poses the origins of the oppidum to the 13th century but it evolved and was built in significant numbers only centuries later"

These centuries has their importance regarding your original theory.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Villar writes that hill-forts are simply a common indo-european cultural characteristics"

Like antic Germanic, Romance or Celtic languages had common characteristics. But if you want to distinguish these antic cultures, you will have to find criteria. Celtic oppida are simply not Roman ones.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "as simply Spain wasn't enough urbanized and there were yet hundreds of smaller hill-forts known as -briga"

Enough occupied to have many pre-indo-european place names (source D/15). For the names ending in -briga, it is not completely sure that they come from the Celts in the Spanish case. That is why I have put the "old" source D/10. And once again, some Celtic toponyms do not mean that there was Celtophony. It is very harsh to understand, apparently.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "mostly from modern research which agrees that from a military point of view oppida were built to face the 1. german 2. roman and 3. dacian menace"

Like I had said, there is no link between Celtic oppida and Roman or Germanic threats. And you had said that I had not understood your idea ?--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "but the real reason of them was simply in the urban development of Gallia who was just urbanizing in that period with the born of real walled cities as existed in the rest of the civilized world"

Wrong. First, the fact that the oppida should be considered as urbanized forms remains controversial (even it is what the source oppida.org seems to say). Second, there are a lot of pre-indo-european toponyms in Spain (source D/15) which shows that this region was not empty, and the culture of the castros, not recognized as a Celtic one, seems to show some densities in NW Spain.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "the lack of comparable Celtic urban centres in Iberia is evidence that the Celtic presence there was therefore not significant. "

Not significant enough to qualify this regions as a "Celtic" one. And it is one of the evidences : few attested place names (less than SW France which was not a Celtic region), no chariots, no attested druidic culture in the texts, no mention of general Celtic speaking in the Roman sources, and probably many others...).--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "As I pointed out above, the relative absence of Celtic oppida in Iberia can be explained by the fact that the peninsula was under Roman control long before the Celts began urbanizing...The lack of Celtic presence in the area around the Pyrenees and Aquitaine would obviously mean that the Celts in Iberia would be developing at a different rate, and quite probably in a different direction from their cousins in the rest of Europe."

Already answered above, and once again, they are original conclusions. By the way, you seem to be unable to explain why SW France should be considered differently as Spain.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "North western castros have specific characteristics one is the existence of saunas[10] and they are specific to the castro culture. This is the sudy of about 100 oppida although not all known are included, very few they get as big as 100 Ha "

No. Your roman quotes are maybe right, but a fortification is not necessary a Celtic one. Many authors say that the strongholds of NW Spain are not linked to the Celtic oppida, due to their very small dimensions and the quasi-absence of Celtic archaeological material found here. They might rather come from a pre-indo-european culture.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ""Les KeXti/.oi (var. Kil-.rJ.) Celiici, sont les Celtes établis au Dord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Bétiquc"

OK, I saw it. But it does not change anything : saying that Celtic tribes (the "Celtici") have been established in Spain, does not mean that they have printed their culture"


 * The full quote was "Les ... Celtici, sont les Celtes etablis au nord-ouest de l'Espagne, au sud de la Lusitanie et en Betique. Les ... Celtiberi sont les Celtes, melanges aux Iberes, qui peuplaient l'Espagne, des sources du Guadiana a celles du Guadalquivir." The point was not to illustrate the presence of the Celtici, but that your sources obviously considers the Celtiberians Celtic - this is further borne out in the contexts of the other 15 or so times he mentions them throughout the book.

Gabhala (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that you have been through the same cycle on the French language page since July, where you also failed to achieve consensus, and your aggressive edits under the user name Komodo resulted in the page being protected, I will not discuss this with you any further, Sleeping water/Komodo. All that needs to be said has been said on this page, and on its French counterpart.

Gabhala (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

what sort of thing is a "celtic oppidum" ? Oppida, Pagus, Vicus and Castella are latin words. AFAIK there was a only one Oppidum in the whole of the British Islands - of course the celticity of Scotland (the disputed celticity of caledonians and picts) and most of England (the theory that most of the inhabitants were ethnic germans with only a celtic ruling class forex) is also disputed

"Livy also reports the siege of Comum Oppidum"

"Castra eo die Gallorum expugnata direptaque, et Comum oppidum post dies paucos captum. castella inde duodetriginta ad consulem defecerunt"

"Castella" is the cisalpine equivalent of the iberic "castros" - when the romans conquered Como 28 of its "castella" surrendered

http://books.google.it/books?id=I8dA94h22S4C&pg=PA520&lpg=PA520&dq=Livy+Comum+oppidum&source=bl&ots=ttPOFeOcNF&sig=sWvbATph_ffNHaWI5Px9BUM7Tbk&hl=it&ei=Wp9pTOy8NIj4sAO4i-mzBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Livy%20Comum%20oppidum&f=false

about Spain, search with for Ullastret Oppidum (and this was an Iberic oppidum as also other peoples then celts built oppida and castros)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullastret_(Oppidum)



Cunibertus (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Three linguistic facts
Why does the Celtic suffix *-āko (-acum, Breton -eg, Welsh -og, Gaelic -(e)ach) not exist in Spain, when it is common in all the countries where there were Celtic settlements ? Even SW France has such -ac toponyms, in competition with Latin -anum and Aquitanic -os.

Why do both Gasconic and Castillan languages turn Latin initial F into H and not Portuguese and Gallician ? We can't imagine that this linguistic innovation was extending from Castille to Gascony or the opposite like a wave, because of the natural Pyrenees Border. I suppose there are other linguistic researchs that should be made in this way.

The only romance language that have words with a Celtic etymology, not borrowed from Latin, not shared by other Romance languages and where some phonetic facts can be related to a Celtic background is French. On the contrary, I don't think there is any linguistic fact that can be found in the modern languages of Iberia, that can't be found in other Romance langages outside Iberia. Nortmannus (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * afaik, castillian is a modern language imposed after the muslim conquest of Spain by a latin learned cultural elite (the Church essentially) escaped from the southern areas of Spain on an originally basque speaking population base, the 80% of the most common spanish surnames are in the basque origin -ez form (Diaz, Narvaez, Gutierrez). Castillian as Standard Italian (tuscan from the Latin speaking Etruscan core, according scholar Clemente Merlo, 1927) sources were from classical literary latin not the spoken variants as it was imposed on a strong non-indoeuropean substratum Cunibertus (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some articles on Celtic languages in Iberia here - http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/index.html. In particular, the article by Carlos Jordan Colera on the Celtiberian language seems to discuss some reasons for the apparent variances between the Iberian Celtic languages and those of other areas - I found the article heavy going, but perhaps it can shed more light on your questions. Gabhala (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any topical connection between these three observations, and if so, does it have any relation to this article? --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that you have been through the same cycle on the French language page since July, where you also failed to achieve consensus, and your aggressive edits under the user name Komodo resulted in the page being protected, I will not discuss this with you any further


 * 1)  Are you an administrator of the French wiki ? No ? So, you have no comment to put here about the french wiki. Or, if you really want it, go on the French wiki, I will have pleasure to discuss with you in my original language : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Celtes
 * 2)  Who do you think you are to put personal judgements about me ? You don't know ever the smallest thing about the debate of the French wiki. The next time you do it, I will report your behaviour. We are not here in your blog.
 * 3) If you don't want to discuss, don't put comments. The only thing I know, is that you have tried to search the smallest detail to revert my sources, but you failed : all these sources strenghth the paragraph I had added about the controversy of Celtic culture in peripheral regions like Iberia. Excepted one or two sources, they are all receivable. And if the debate turns round, this is because you put always the same strawman argument ("There are evidences of Celtic presence in Iberia"), and I remind you that I had to copy past these sources because you or your friends were unable to read the talk page. --Sleeping water (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "what sort of thing is a "celtic oppidum" ?"

Celtic oppida are defined by historians and archaeologists. I won't teach you a lesson about it. --Sleeping water (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Why does the Celtic suffix *-āko (-acum, Breton -eg, Welsh -og, Gaelic -(e)ach) not exist in Spain, when it is common in all the countries where there were Celtic settlements ? Even SW France has such -ac toponyms, in competition with Latin -anum and Aquitanic -os."

This is exactly what I have said : there is as much Celtic toponyms in SW France, maybe more, than in Spain. However, SW France is not considered as Celtic in Antic times. Why the hell should we consider Spain as more Celtic in the same period, with the same situation ? --Sleeping water (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Point d'appui, strong point, Aquitaine was strong enough to survive despite surrounded - between rivers and mounts - in the same way Etruria was indo-europeized only under the Roman rule, conquest usually happens in jeopardy who is eliminated only much later by homogeinization - the celtic immigrants probably weren't interested in the Vasconic lands and they found areas of lesser resistance elsewhere towards better or less warlike territories. and for the III century BC Aquitaine is generally considered celticized, afaik Cunibertus (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting points, but totally original conclusions. You have no source or text to show that SW France should have more resisted to a Celtic impact than Spain, and no, Aquitaine is considered as a celtic region in almost no source. --Sleeping water (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Summarize about the Celtic print in Iberia and other peripheral regions
At this step, I will reput the problematic :

1. the presence of Celtic tribes in Iberia is attested by archaeological material

2. but this Celtic archaeological material is very thin and controversial : no chariots, no real Celtic oppidum, no druidic culture attested, not much toponyms, even compared to SW France (considered as not Celtic)...in fact, just some inscriptions, dishes and weapons - see the sources.

3. Names given to some tribes do not prove anything (see Lombardy, Burgundy, Andalusia...).

4. many authors contest that Iberia should have ever known any Celtic culture. See the sources that I have posted. Idem for the most of Italy and Galatia (excepted Putzger Historical Atlas which includes some parts of Northern Italy).

5. conclusion 1 : due to this thin heritage and according to those numerous authors, we cannot present a map titled "distribution of Celtic peoples" or "languages" including Iberia or Italy, since Celts were not the dominant culture in these regions. Outside a central core where majority Celtic culture is really attested (most of France, British Isles, Southern and Central Germany...), Celts have formed only scattered tribes and minorities ; same schema for the Germanics : outside the central Germanic core (Germany, England, Holland, Scandinavia), they will form only scattered tribes or minorities.

6. conclusion 2 : du to this thin heritage and due to those numerous authors, we must add a paragraph establishing that Celtic culture is not really attested in Spain and contested by many authors.

The discussion with 5 or 6 users have changed nothing in those facts. Furthermore, the first current map is a self-drawn map. So, it is more correct to put an academical one. I put the Putzger Historical Atlas map which makes a consensus, not between 5 or 6 users (the number does not make the truth), but between all the sources :
 * the uncontested Celtic areas in a colored area
 * the peripheral regions with arrows which show influences and migrations, but not attested Celtic culture

And I maintain the paragraph that I had added which was nuanced and sourced. I know that the map is a little thin and perfectible in "esthetical ways", but it is closer to the scientific truth. And I know too that my edits will be reverted by one or several users. If these ones will do it without any argument, I will report their vandalism. --Sleeping water (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"See the sources that I have posted"

Si on reprend tes trois sources A/ :

Paul Broca n’est pas vraiment une source valable (ancienne et non-spécialiste), de plus il s’agit uniquement d’un compte-rendu de séance orale. De toute façon, à aucun moment, il ne réduit les Celtes à leur langue (au contraire, il indique qu’il existe une acception purement historique et politique et donne des critères raciaux) Antonio De la Peña est déjà une source plus acceptable (bien que ce Antonio De la Peña soit un inconnu, il serait nécessaire d’avoir un minimum d’information sur lui) mais 1. on a pas la source original juste une citation, 2. il parle du celtisme (lequel ?) et non des Celtes. Henri Hubert est une assez bonne source mais trop datée. Là encore, il ne réduit pas non plus explicitement le peuple à la langue, il n’en fait que l’une des caractéristiques les plus claires et les plus exactes des sociétés

afaik the celtic populations in northern Italy were early Hallstattian (13th century BC) and the spanish ones entered around 10th - so these peoples were proto-celts as classical celts date from the La Tène culture 450 BC

if you look at Untermann's maps you'll see that Leponti and Celtiberi were Q-celtic speakers, and that would mean an old migration 

btw, here there are some interesting maps

1. The difficult question of Celticity

for the followers of the continuity theory

about chariot burials

Cunibertus (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "See the sources that I have posted" Si on reprend tes trois sources A/ : Henri Hubert est une assez bonne source mais trop datée. Là encore, il ne réduit pas non plus explicitement le peuple à la langue, il n’en fait que l’une des caractéristiques les plus claires et les plus exactes des sociétés "

Hum...you have mistaken the quote (a kind of strawman argument, like always) : the sentance "many authors contest that Iberia should have ever known any Celtic culture. See the sources that I have posted." was about C/ (controversy about Celtic culture in Spain. Not about the linguistic concept about the Celts. I invite you to come in the French wiki, you will see how it is difficult to discuss in a foreign language, above all with some "clever" users who always make semantic manipulations and strawman arguments...


 * "afaik the celtic populations in northern Italy were early Hallstattian (13th century BC) and the spanish ones entered around 10th - so these peoples were proto-celts as classical celts date from the La Tène culture 450 BC...if you look at Untermann's maps you'll see that Leponti and Celtiberi were Q-celtic speakers, and that would mean an old migration"

I'm not sure what you mean, but the fact that some celtic tribes have entered in Italy before Spain is not the subject. The Putzger Historical Atlas show the maximum extension which is nearly by 3 or 2nd century BC. And the presence of Celtic tribes in Spain is ONCE AGAIN not the subject. Arrows show their entry, but like many authors said, they did not print their culture.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "btw, here there are some interesting maps"

I agree, interesting maps. But please, read the text entirely : "The presentation, explanation and study of Celtic cultural elements in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula presents the observer with a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, as outlined in the work of most international investigators, and even in well founded (although in the minority) Spanish studies, the cultural and linguistic situation of pre-Roman populations in this part of the peninsula as part of the Celtic word is considered so obvious that any discussion appears superfluous. Maps showing the distribution of the Celts in ancient times, or of pre-Roman languages, represent all the central and northwestern parts of the Iberian Peninsula as part of the Celtic language area (Figs. 1a, b, c). However, this situation is openly contested by a number of specialists, particularly Spanish archaeologists, but also linguists from other countries.

The sources 14 talks about a "possible" celtic language. For the source 15, I can mistake, but I did not see any mention of the "chariots" (neither author mention by the way). But for these last, I contested for Spain, not for Alpine Italy.

Once again, the Putzger map is more accurated for a scientific consensus : attested celtic culture in "Central Europe", and migrations and influences in Southern Europe.--Sleeping water (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Back on track
If we can get back on the original track for a minute, there is absolutely no consensus for User:Sleeping water's recent edits.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. the presence of Celtic tribes in Iberia is attested by archaeological material

Not just, the main references are from historical fonts. By archeological material you mean La Tene Material culture which is a 20th century concept based on a theory of which the ancient had not knowledge of. Their concept of celt was not an archaeological one, but one based on their own iron age concept.


 * 2. but this Celtic archaeological material is very thin and controversial : no chariots, no real Celtic oppidum, no druidic culture attested, not much toponyms, even compared to SW France (considered as not Celtic)...in fact, just some inscriptions, dishes and weapons - see the sources.

The evidence that exist of a chariot in Lusitania could be a celtic one or not, no one knows, and by your logic the only evidence in east Iberia would then mean that the region where no chariots were found was less Iberian. The “real celtic oppidum” actually means what? Size? The population density? I haven´t seen any real concept in here. About the toponyms there are many not all known: (increase 200%) 

You missed the theonyms:  there is no druidic culture attested and there is also nothing about the religion or diviners  of Iberia,  the one mention to a diviner, the hieroskópos, says very little.  We also do not know what technologies the romans learned from the tribes of Iberia except swordsmithing, which means not much is known about their technology: pg620 You also forgot to mention the presence of ethnonyms


 * 3. Names given to some tribes do not prove anything (see Lombardy, Burgundy, Andalusia...).

You forgot to mention ethnicity of which the Greeks so much referred to. Who the greeks defined as celts was based on ethnic distinctions: “Now although the geographer should tell of all the physical and ethnic distinctions which have been made, whenever they are worth recording, yet, as for the diversified political divisions which are made by the rulers (for they suit their government to the particular times), it is sufficient if one state them merely in a summary way; and the scientific treatment of them should be left to others.” [Strabo geography Book IV Chapter 1] Besides being given the tribal name they were also given an ethnicity: The Lusitanians, they were referred as being Cimbri, pg263 the celtiberians like the Belli or  the Titti had an ethnicity and a tribal name. And Martial who said he "sprung from the Celts and Iberians, and a countryman of the Tagus;" as well as other people who buried their dead as celts, finding out two thousand years later,  that after all they were not celts  would make them un-dig their dead and rename their stelae.
 * 4. many authors contest that Iberia should have ever known any Celtic culture. See the sources that I have posted. Idem for the most of Italy and Galatia (excepted Putzger Historical Atlas which includes some parts of Northern Italy).

By celtic culture you mean LaTene culture, a concept the ancient people did not have. And a theory not a consensus among archaeologists that material culture should define or exclude ethnicity : pg173 For that matter Putzger Historical Atlas, has not always been very accurate: pg 97-98


 * "5. conclusion 1 : due to this thin heritage and according to those numerous authors, we cannot present a map titled "distribution of Celtic peoples" or "languages" including Iberia or Italy, since Celts were not the dominant culture in these regions. Outside a central core where majority Celtic culture is really attested (most of France, British Isles, Southern and Central Germany...), Celts have formed only scattered tribes and minorities ; same schema for the Germanics : outside the central Germanic core (Germany, England, Holland, Scandinavia), they will form only scattered tribes or minorities ."

Thin? There was not one culture or ethnicity in Iberia, claiming there should be only one dominant, means they also could not be iberians.
 * "6. conclusion 2 : du to this thin heritage and due to those numerous authors, we must add a paragraph establishing that Celtic culture is not really attested in Spain and contested by many authors."

Conclusion: we should not confuse a 20th century archaeological theoretical concept, with an Iron age ethnic concept.188.140.88.37 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost every map isn't accurate, especially considering they would try in this case to encompass a period or may be 1,500 year, but this one is quietly good, IMO, despite the theory behind it Cunibertus (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Cuchullain, read again, the above edit  is refuting User:Sleeping water, not supporting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.24.206 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Celts
I thought we had this resolved long ago, but it has come back. The italics at the top of this article do not appear in feeds as on the Facebook Celts page so readers do not know you are talking about Ancient Celts, therefore the change just made gives the impression that Celts are a people of the past not the present day (which is news to my Celtic-speaking friends) with the use of the word "were" with no present tense. This sort of bias needs to be fixed and one way to do this is to use the qualifier "ancient" before "Celts" to make this clear in the lede itself. The other way was to use Iron-Age and Roman-era as qualifiers but the editor who made this change finds this unacceptable apparently.Jembana (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The modern Celts are not "a people". Modern Celts is a romantic nationalist concept uniting a number of peoples including Gaels, Welsh and Bretons. The modern self-appellation of "Celts" by some enthusiasts is modelled after the historical Celts. The primary meaning of the term "Celts" (no qualification) is the ancient populations discussed in this article. "Modern Celts" are at best an ethno-linguistic super-group, i.e. Celtic Europe on par with Germanic Europe and Latin Europe. There isn't "a modern Celtic people" any more than there is  "a modern Germanic people". Your concern can be addressed by a simple disambiguation note, for modern Celts, see Modern Celts --dab (𒁳) 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The concern is not addressed by the italic bit at the top since it does not appear in feeds to very popular social-networking sites amongst the young like Facebook. The definition of Celts in the page reference in the source cited (Koch's encyclopedia) clearly defines Celts a people who use or used to use a Celtic language so Modern Celts by this definition from a reliable secondary source (as per Wiki guidelines) definitely says that Modern Celts are a reality and not an invention.Jembana (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue was resolved; it was generally agreed that this article was on the ancient Celts, hence the change. Modern Celts can be found via disambiguation, as Dbachmann says.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about how much weight the appearance of the article in Facebook carries, but Jembana is correct - the disambiguation links are not included on that feed. Otherwise the article seems to (at a quick glance) appear in its entirety.  Unless I'm seriously misreading Jembana's point, the disambiguation should be repeated early in the text - assuming that the Facebook feed is something we care about. Gabhala (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it is not something we worry about. Anyone accessing this (or any) article in any web browser will be able to see the disambiguation links, which are the standard way Wikipedia disambiguates articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's several assumptions too far for me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is precisely my point, thanks Gabhala. Facebook has a huge use amongst the young people - exactly the group who are taking up the Celtic languages (as a Saturday night spent in Carnarvon or a ferry ride from Lewis when young people are heading off to Summer vacation will illustrate). It would be a pity to give the wrong impression to them (who often will not use Wikipedia directly) for the sake of repeating just one word in the lede.Jembana (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most young people use the Wikipedia when they are doing school assignments, but now with Facebook feeds its a one-stop shop and direct Wikipedia lookups by the young will be fewer as social-networking sites grow ever more popular. Jembana (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it really is a concern, it's something that will affect many, many other articles; it's not something to be solved here alone. Perhaps you could bring it up at village pump.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True, it shouldn't be decided here. Any such change should be decided much more widely by a wider group of editors. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is published under the GFDL. What third parties do with the content, in feeds, mirrors, forks and what have you, is none of our concern as long as the licence is satisfied. We have enough on our hands to fix the content that is on-wiki. I would not advise trying to control the content dispersed over dodgy channels on the internet in general, that's a fool's errand. --dab (𒁳) 06:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Celtic language of the ancient Galicians
Well, this is my response to “Three Linguistic facts”. It's extensive, and I owe you excuses for this, but I really consider it is interesting, not because of me, but because of the material. Have fun:

First, I want to include a translation of a fragment of the Chorographia of the Roman geographer Pomponius Mela (III.6-9), a description of the coastal areas of Galicia 2000 years ago:


 * '“(From the mouth of the Douro) all the coast is straight, just until where a small ford enters into the land, and then the land protrudes into the Ocean, and then again for several times; later the shore is again straight by the cape we call Celticum. All this land is inhabited by the Celtici [Totam Celtici colunt], except from the Douro until the bay,  where the Grovi dwell, there the rivers Avo, Celadus, Minius and the one which is also called Oblivion, the Limia, flow. In the bay we found the city of Lambri [Lambriacam urbem], while the surroundings receive the rivers Ulia and Laeron. The prominent part is inhabited by the Praestamarchi, through them the river Tamaris and Sars flow, not far from their springs, the Tamaris through the port of Ebora, the Sar near the Tower of Augustus, a memorable monument. Beyond this point the Supertamarici and the Nerii dwell, in the last tract. And this was about the western seashore. From there the coast is turned to the North, from the cape Celtico until the Pyrenees, with just some minor ford or some small cape;  by the Cantrabri, it is almost completely straight. There first they are the Artabri who are still of the Celtic people [In ea primum Artabri sunt etiamnum Celticae gentis]; after them, the Astures. Among the Artabri there is the city of Adrobrica [Adrobricam urbem], in a bay with a narrow mouth although with a extensive littoral (...)”'.

So, what P. Mela affirmed is that at least the coastal areas of the actual Galicia was inhabited by a people or nation called the Celtici, divided in several minor populi (Praestamarchi, Supertamarci, Nerii, Artabri...). And what I pretend to show down here is that these Celtici used Q-Celtic names (together with names of Latin or other origins), lived in hill-forts and oppida with Q-Celtic names, adorned their necks with golden torques, their homes with triskelions, and their oppida with stone statues and severed heads. And they have even left other evidences through the Q-Celtic words inherited by Galician language.

1.- The *-ācum suffix (very common in Latin inscriptions and geographers descriptions, as an example, see Lambriacam urbem, up) doesn't produce in Iberia -and as long as I know, neither in Britain or Ireland- the same results as it produces in ancient Gaul, village names derived of the name of its possessor, precisely because the Celts of Iberia were not Gaulish. Otherwise, the pan-Celtic suffix -*ko- was the more common way in the Celtic languages of Iberia for building a relational adjective from a proper name. And in particular, in Galicia and the North of Spain the complex suffix *-āk-yo- > -aico- > -égo- is very productive, and sometimes even alternates with the Germanic origin one -engo-: Gallaico > 'Galego' “Galician, from Galicia” (etymologically probably *Kāll-āk-y-oi “of the Woods”), 'labrego' “laborer”, 'chairego' < Vlat *planaria + -ego- “from the plains”, 'fiuncego' “honorable” < Lat fiducia “trust” + -ego-, but 'mañanego' / 'mañanengo' “early riser” (mañana = morning), 'andarengo / andarego' “fast, quick” (andar = to walk).

2.- Gascon and Spanish turn /f/ into /h/ and eventually /ø/, yes. This is usually considered as a Basque influx. In Roman times Basques lived in both sides of the Pyrenees, as today, but far of the coastal areas where today Basque is mostly spoken; the Basques was expanding from the mountains to the plains: in Aquitania, among the Auscis, Ponponius Mela cites such a Basque-sounding town's name as Eliumberrum (Chorographia, III.15) which in modern Basque will renders Iriberri: “Town-New”. Another city with the same name, Iliberri, is cited by Pliny south of the Pyrenees. No such Basque toponyms are ever cited for Galicia, Asturias or Cantabria in any classical source (the Canadian scholar P. Curchin in a recent study: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=2660639&orden=0, couldn't find any pre-Indo-European or Basque substratum; even more so, of the old toponymy of this region he found that almost. half of them were Celtic, with another similar number with Indo-Eurpean etymology, but probably not Celtic in origin; similar results he found in Celtiberia http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/28/40/02curchin.pdf, where he also found Basque and Iberian toponyms, and in Galicia: http://estudiosgallegos.revistas.csic.es/index.php/estudiosgallegos/article/view/41/41).

3.- It's false that only French language possesses Celtic words not inherited by another Romance languages. In fact, Galician (which has a written tradition since the C13th, and abundant local Latin records from the C9th) is pretty rich in words of Celtic -or IE substrate- origin. Let's see some of them. In what's coming next, Galician words can be consulted in dictionary collections like the Dictionary of Dictionaries (http://sli.uvigo.es/ddd/index.html) and the Dictionary of Dictionaries of Old Galician (http://sli.uvigo.es/DDGM/), or in corpora like the Corpus Xelmirez (http://sli.uvigo.es/xelmirez/index.html), TMILG (http://ilg.usc.es/tmilg/) and CODOLGA (http://corpus.cirp.es/codolga/) -the last two require registration-; for proto-Celtic, a checklist or project on a dictionary can be found in A Checklist of proto-Celtic Lexical Items by Alan Ward (on-line here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20623905/A-Checklist-of-Proto-Celtic-Lexical-Items) and the 'Etymological Dictionary of proto-Celtic' by Ranko Matasovic (there's an early on-line version here: http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/main.cgi?root=leiden). Note that the evolution of Galician is marked by a general lenition of the occlusive consonant system, so [kk] > [k], [k] > [γ], [g] > [ø] when intervocalic (Lat saccum > Gl saco “sack”, lacum > lago “lake”, ego > eu “I”); the consonant clusters are frequently reduced ([kt] > [it]: Lat noctem “night” > Gl noite); phonetic syntactics (so words change, evolve and mix in function of their context: so 'un gato' “a cat” [uŋ gæto] but 'o gato' “the cat” [o γæto] but 'do gato' “of the cat” < de + o, 'co gato' “with the cat” < con + o); anticipation of yod ('obradoiro' “working place” < Lat. operatorium); a strong stress accent which produces the elision of post-tonic or pre-tonic vowels; elision, many times with nasalization of /n/, /l/, /w/, /y/ when intervocalic ('deitar' “to thow” < Lat dejectare; 'ceo' “sky” < caelum; 'por' “to put” < Lat ponere).


 * Gl alboio shed, hut", cognate of OI airbe < PClt *(P)ARE-BOWION ”*(place) for cows” (cf. Ward).
 * OGal amba "water, river" (in place names AMBAS MESTAS < *AMBAS MIXTAS "Mixed Waters"), cognate of Gaulish ambe "water, river"; with composite carambo "ice" (Sp. carámbano) < *CAR-AMB-ANO- "(of)-Hard-water" (cf. Pokorny, Matasovic).
 * Gl and Sp garganta "throat", cognate of I brágha W breuant (windpipe) OB brehant C bryangen < *gwargant- (cf. Ward, Matasovic s.v. bārgant-). This word seems to be per se a cognate -in fact the only one in any non Celtic language- of PClt *brāgant-: note gw > g / gw instead of gw > b; but we can also have had an old assimilation barga- > garga-.
 * OGal busto "cow farm" (Asturian bustar “pastures”; Celtiberiam boustom) < PClt *bow-sto- "Cow-Stand" (cf. Ward, Matasovic)
 * Gl carnoca "stump" < *karn-okkā, cf. I W carn "heap" < PCl *karn- "heap" (cf. Ward, Matasovic)
 * Gl crica "nose; vulva; ribbon" cognate of OI crich OW crip "comb" < PClt *krīkwā "furrow, trench, boundary" (cf. Matasovic).
 * Gl croio "rolling stone" < *krod-yo-, cf. Occ crói "rude" < PClt *KROD- "rude" (cf. Ward, Matasovic)
 * Gl curuto < *crutto "hear, summit", cocorota < *con-crutta "top of the head" < PCtl *krutto- "round object" (cf. Matasovic)
 * Gl gorar "to hatch", cognate of OI guirid W gori < PClt GOR- (cf. Ward s.v. GORIT)
 * Gl laxe < lage < lagena "stone slab", cognate of OI lágan láigean W llain "blade" < PClt *(p)lag-ēnā "broad spearhead" (cf. Ward)
 * Gl leira< laria "field, flat and delimited piece of arable land" cognate of English floor, I lár W llawr B leur < PClt *(p)lār- "flat, floor".(cf. Ward, Matasovic)
 * OGal ler "sea, shore" (poetic word used in cantigas of the C13th), cognate of OI.ler OW lirou [p] "seas, oceans" < PClt *liro- "sea, ocean".
 * Gl meniño "kid, child" < *mennino, related to MI menn "kid, young of an animal" MW myn "young goat, kid" MB menn, from PClt *menno- "kid" (cf. Matasovic).
 * Gl miñoca "earthworn" (Asturian miroca, milu idem; OI MW MB mil "anima") < *milocca, from PClt *mīlo- "small animal" (cf. Ward, Matasovic).
 * Gl rodaballo "turbot" (Spanish rodaballo has been taken from Galician) < PClt *rota-ballion "whell-sack" (cf. Ward, Matasovic)
 * Gl tona "bark, husk, skin, scum of the milk", cognate of OI tonn MW tonn "skin, rind, surface, turf" OBret. tonnenn < PClt *tondā "skin" (cf. Matasovic).
 * Gl trobo Asturian truébano "beehive" < trobano (old Galician beehives were small round huts with conical roof) < PClt *trebno- "house" (cf. Matasovic).
 * Gl trogo "anxiety, sadness", cognate of OI truag trog OW tru < PClt *trowgo- "sorry, sad" (cf.Matasovic).
 * Gl trusco "cross-eyed", truscada "bad action", related to Ol trosc "leprous" MW trwsgl "rash, crude, rude, coarse, clumsy" OBret. trusci gl. scabiem < *PClt *trussko- (cf. Matasovic).
 * Gl Sp virar "to turn" MI fiar MW gwyr B gwar "curved" < PClt *wēro- "crooked" (cf. Matasovic)

All right, we also have other Celtic words which either are inherited from the local Celtic Language, or either they arrived from another Celtic regions of Europe, maybe as integral part of Low Latin, like:
 * Gl alpendre "eave, winger", from Gaulish arepennis (cf. Fr. arpent Sp. alpende),
 * Gl bico "peak, kiss", from PClt *bekkos (cf. Fr. Prov. bec),
 * Gl bidueiro / biduo from LLat betula (cf. Sp abedul),
 * Gl borba "slime, mud, mucus" < PClt *borwā (cf. Fr bourbe),
 * Gl braña "spawn, moor" < PClt *bragno- (cf Catalan braina),
 * Gl brio "strength, power" < PClt *brīgon (cf. Prov. briu Sp brio),
 * Gl cai "dam, wall, dock" < PClt *cagion (cf Fr. quai),
 * Gl cambiar "exchange", cambo "crooked", canga < *cambica "crooked log." < PClt *kamb- (cf. Fr changer jambe Sp cambiar),
 * Gl canto "border, corner" < PClt *kantos (cf.Occ cant Sp canto),
 * Gl carpinteiro "carpenter" < PClt *karbant- "wagon" (cf Fr charpente Sp carpintero),
 * Gl cheda, chedeiro "parts of a waggon" < PClt *klētā "hurdle" (cf. Occ cleda),
 * Gl choco "bell, squid" < PClt *klakk- (cf. Fr cloche),
 * Gl gavela "bunch, bundle" < PClt *gabaglā (cf. Fr javelle Occ gavèla Sp gavilla),
 * Gl legua "league" < PClt *leukā (cf Fr lieue Sp legua),
 * Gl olga "arable land, field" < *olica < PClt *(p)olkā (cf. OFr ouche Occ. olca),
 * Gl rego "furrow" < PClt *riks (cf Fr raie Occ.Cat. rega Basque erreka),
 * Gl toxo "ulex Europaeus" < togio < PClt *tōgi- (cf Fr tuie Gascon toja),
 * Gl verea 'path' < (C9th) vereda 'main road', cf. VLatin verēdus 'horse' < PClt *u(p)o-rēdo- 'under-riding'. And the usual bunch: carro, cervexa, camisa, camiño, cabalo, etc...

Now, these words are accompanied by a huge onomastic legate. I'll cite some interesting cases:

A.- ETHNONYMS: Among the ethnonyms Roman and Greek authors cite as inhabiting in Gallaecia we found the Celtici Supertamarci and Praestamarci, that is the Celtici living beyond or before the Tamara river (today Tambre, note tamara + *-ko- > -tamarc-, with elision of post-tonical vowel. Note also the British Thames); The Nerii ( < PClt *Nerioi “The strong/powerfull ones”: MW ner 'Lord'), the Albiones (PClt *albiyo- “(Upper) World”), the Artabri (PClt *arto- “bear”), the Arrotrebas (PClt *trebā 'settlement'), the Cabarci (near the Asturian betacist area, probably from *cawarikoi, PClt *kawaro- “hero”), the Querquerni (PIE *perkwe- “oak”, with Celtic assimilation p..kw > kw..kw), Lemavi ( < Lēmawoi, PClt *lēmo- 'elm'), Equasei (PClt *ekwo- 'horse'), Nemetatari (PClt *nemeto- 'sacred place', but probably also 'strenght, power', cf. Matasovic)...

B.- PERSONAL NAMES Just some, mostly of Galicia, some from nearby areas (cf. Hispania Epigraphica on-line DB: http://www.eda-bea.es/pub/search_select.php?newlang=en):
 * PClt *(p)lātro- “position; (flat) layer”: LATRONIUS.
 * PClt *(p)lowyo- “rudder”: LOVESIA f, LOVEIUS, LOVESI.
 * PClt *(p)olno- “great, vast”: AMBOLLI < Ambi-oln-y-os “Very Great”.
 * PClt *ambi-actos “servant”: AMBATI.
 * PClt *artos- “bear”: ARTILO, ARTIUS.
 * PClt *ayto- “life, age”: AETURAE f.
 * PClt *bodo- “pleasure”: BODOCENA f.
 * PClt *bowdi- “victory”:, BOBDAENI < PClt *Boudogenos “Born of the Victory”, BOUDICAE f.
 * PClt *ebur- ”yew”: EBURIA f, EBURINA f, AEBURA f, EBURI.
 * PClt *elani- “hind”: ELANICO, ELANIO, ELANICAE f.
 * PClt *kambo- “crooked, twisted”: CAMBAVIUS.
 * PClt *karo- “loved”: CARISIUS, CARISIA f.
 * PClt *katu- “battle”: CATURO (gen. CATURONIS), CATIUS, CATUENUS < *Katugenos “Born of the Battle”.
 * PClt *kaylo- “omen”: CAELICI, CAELENI, CAELEO, CAELENICUS.
 * PClt *kelt- “spear” or “fight”, among other etymologies: CELTIUS, CELTIATUS, ARCELTI < PClt *(p)are-kelt-yos, CONCELTI.
 * PClt *kēlyo “companion”: CELEA f.
 * PClt *klut- “fame”, and *klout- < PIE *kleut-: CLOUTI, CLUTIMONI, CLOUTIUS, CLUTAMI < *klutamos “very famous”, CLUTOSI, CLOUTIUS CLOUTAI, VESUCLOTI “Good Fame”.
 * PClt *klow- “fame”: ACLOVIANA f, from *Ad-klow-y-os “Very Famous”.
 * PClt *koryo- “troop, tribe”: COROLEAE, CORALI, CORIA f, CORONERI.
 * PClt *koymo- “dear, nice”: COEMIA f.
 * PClt *lowk- “bright”: LOUCI.
 * PClt *māro- “great”: MARONIS.
 * PClt *mati- “good”: MATURI (MATIGENUS in Celtiberia).
 * PClt *medu- “mead”: MEDUCEA f, MEDUENI < *Medugenos “Born of Mead”.
 * PClt *medyo- “middle”: MEDAMUS “Middlemost”.
 * PClt *melgos- “milk”: MELGAECUS < *Melg-āk-y-os “Milky”.
 * PClt *nanti- “fight, battle”: NANTIUS, NANTIA f.
 * PClt *sekw- “follou; say”: SEGUIA, SEICUIUS, SECOILIA f.
 * PClt *talu- “front”: TALAVIUS, TALAVIAE f.
 * PClt *tritiyo- “third”: TRITI, TRITES, TRITEI, TRIDIAE f.
 * PClt *u(p)er- “over”: VEROBLII.
 * PClt *wēko- “fight”: VECIUS.
 * PClt *wīro- “true” or *wiro- “man”: VIRIUS, VIRIATUS, VIRONUS.
 * PClt? *wrt- cero grade of PClt *wert- “worth, price”: URTINUS, URTIENUS < *Urtigenos “Born of the Worth (booty?)”.

C.- TOPONYMY: From 'ancient sources' (Pliny, Strabo, Mela...), or from EPIGRAPHIC ones (cf. Hispania Epigraphica on-line DB), or modern place names (cf. Aquén http://sli.uvigo.es/toponimia/, or Toponimia de Galicia http://toponimia.xunta.es/gl/inicio).
 * PClt *(p)are-coro- “cast, shoot”: ERCORIOBRI < *(p)ari-cor-yo-bri.
 * PClt *(p)eno- “swamp, moor, water”: Iñobre (village) < *(p)en-yo-bri “Hill-fort by the Water” (it is just some meters from the seashore, in Arousa Bay).
 * PClt *(p)lāgēna- “broad-headed spear”: Laxobre < *Lagenobri (cf Gl laxa “slab” < lagena).
 * PClt *(p)lāno- “full”: 'Laniobrensis' (Toledo Councils) < *Lān-yo-bri “Hill-fort of the Plain”.
 * PClt *(p)leto- “broad”: Ledesma (a parish) < *(p)letisama “The broadest one”; Ledoño (another parish) < *Letonio. LETIOBRI “Broad Hill-fort”.
 * PClt *(p)olka- “arable land”: OLCA (a Hill-fort).
 * PClt *amba- “water, river”: Ambas Mestas, several at places where rivers meet, meaning “mixed waters”. River Ambía.
 * PClt *anat- “breathe; soul?”: Anzobre (a village) < Anazovre (C10th) < *Anat-yo-bri.
 * PClt *ardw- “high”: Ardaña (parish) < *Arduanyā.
 * PClt *awelā- “wind”: AVILIOBRIS < *Awel-yo-brigs “Windy Hill(-fort)”
 * PClt *ayto- “life, age”: BANDUE AETIOBRIGO “To the god Bandus of Aetiobri” < *Ayt-yo-bri.
 * PClt *bergā “river bank”: 'Bergido' (modern day Bierzo).
 * PClt *brigant- “high, exalted (one, place)”: 'Brigantium'; also modern day Bragança (N Portugal) < Bregantia (C10th). The district of Bergantiños, in Galicia, which probably perpetuates an ancient tribal name < Bregantinos (C9th) “The Princes/Noblemen”.
 * PClt *brigs “hill, hill-fort”: Tens, past and present, in two variants *brigā > -bria > -bra (in modern toponymy), and *-brigs > *brixs > bris (and -bre, -vre, -ve, -be in modern toponymy) ... passim.
 * PClt *brīwā “bridge”: The municipality of Dumbría < Donobria (C9th) < *Dūnobrīwā “Fort-Bridge”. Bribes (a parish and a village) < *Brivis (Latin locative: “where the bridges”).
 * PClt *dēwo- “god”: There are in Galicia two rivers named Deva.
 * PClt *dubro- “dark > river”: There's a Galician river named Dubra.
 * PClt *dūno. “fort, rampart”: 'Libredon' (moder day Santiago de Compostela) < *Librodūnon “Long Rampart”; 'Caladunum';
 * PClt *elani- “hind”: ELANEOBRIGENSIS < *Elan-yo-brigā “Hill-fort of the Hind”.
 * PClt *glendos- “valley, shore”: 'Glandomirum'.
 * PClt *kamb- “crooked, twisted”: 'Cambetum'; Camboño < *Camb-on-yo-; tens of places called Camba, Cambados, Cambela..
 * PClt *kantom “a hundred”: There are several places (villages and parishes) called Cantoña in Galicia < *Kant-on-yā “A hundred (homes / rooms)”: there are also several Zanfoga < VLatin Cen(tu) Foca “A hundred homes”, which perpetuates the tradition, as the place 'Centumcellas' (in Parochialem Suevorum, C6th, Latin for “A hundred rooms”).
 * PClt *karant- “friend”: There are several parishes and villages called Carantoña < *Karant-on-yā 'The Friendly (Hill-fort?)”, as there are one Carantos “The Friends, and one Canzobre < Caranzobre (C14th) < *Karant-yo-brigs “The Frienly Hillfort”.
 * PClt *karn- “heap”: There is in Galicia a municipality called Carnota < *Karno-ottā (“Big Heap”: the toponym exists at least since the 9th century), presided by the mountain called “Monte do Pindo”, a 700 m high heap of reddish granite (it was a sacred pagan mountain, as we know through medieval documents, local micro-toponym “Onde-Se-Adora” “Where they pray”, and even some medieval Latin inscription forbidding anyone of getting near the top of the mountain). The were (and maybe still are) other hills with the same name elsewhere in Galicia.
 * PClt *katu- “Battle”: 'Catora' (a Visigothic mint, < *Kartu-rā “Combative?”); Cadarnoxo (a village) < Cadarnogia (C12th) < *Katarn-ow-yā (cf. the Scottish word catharn “band of warriors”).
 * PClt *kaylo- “omen”: 'Caelenis'; also maybe Cillobre (a pair of villages) < *Celiobre < *Kayl-yo-brigs (cf. Caeliobriga in Lusitania).
 * PClt *kiwo- “fog”: Ciobre (a village) < *Kiwobri “Foggy Hill(-fort)”.
 * PClt *koret- “wall”: Cortobe < *Kore'tobri “Hill(-fort) of the Wall”.
 * PClt *kwolo- “wheel”: Coebre (a village) < Colobre (C10th) < *Kwolobri “Hill(-fort) of the Wheel”.
 * PClt *lēmo- “elm”: Lemaio (a parish) < *Lēmawyo; also, the district of Lemos < Lemavos, after the tribe of the Lemavi.
 * PClt *lēris “visible”: Leroño (a parish) < *Lēronyo, Lermo (a village) < *Lēramo “Very Visible”.
 * PClt *lestro- “vessel, wickerwork?”: Lestrobe (two villages) < *Lestrobri.
 * PClt *lowko- “bright, light”: LOUCIOCELO < *Loukyouxselo- “Bright-Hill”.
 * PClt *magyo “great”: Maiobre (a village) < *Magyobri “Great Hill-fort”.
 * PClt *moniyo- “mountain”: Amoexa (a parish by a 1000 m high mountain range) < Amonegia < *Ad-moniyā “at the Mountains”.
 * PClt *nantu-/o- “valley, brook”: 'Ebronanto'; several places and rivers called Nanton. Two parishes with the name Nantes < *Nantis “*where the Valleys/Brooks”. A dedication to SULEIS NANTUGAICIS “To the Suleis of Nantuca”.
 * PClt *nemeto- “sacred place”: 'Nemetobriga' “Sacred Hill-fort” (an oppidum); also the district of Nendos < Nemitos < *Nemetos “The noblemen? / The strong ones?” (cf. Matasovic, s. v.).
 * PClt *nowyo “new”: the municipality of Noia, probably < 'Novium' (Ptolemy).
 * PClt *okros “side, edge”: several villages called Ogrobe and a municipality: O Grove < Ogrobre < *Okro-bri “Hill-fort of the Side/Edge”.
 * PClt *olīnā “elbow, angle”: 'Olina' (Ptolemy).
 * PClt *owxselo- “high, elevated” >? -ocel- “*hill”: 'Ocelum' (Ptolomy); LARI OCAELAEGO < *Owxsel-ak-yo “to the tutelar god of the hill”; MARTI TARBUCELI < *Tarwowxselo “To Mars of the Hill of the Bull”; LOUCIOCELO < *Lowkyowxselo “Bright-Hill”.
 * PClt *owxsV- “high”: Osmo (a parish) < Osamo < *Uxsamo- “the Very Elevated (one)”.
 * PClt *sego- “force”: SESMACA < *Segisama-ka “Of Segesama”: *Seg-isama “The Strongest (Town)”; 'Assegonia' (It. Antonino) < *Ad-seg-on-yā “The very strong one”. There are three Galician parishes called Sísamo, Sésamo < *Segisamum, and Segovia < *Segowyā.
 * PClt *talu- “front”: Trobe (a parish) < Talobre (C10th).
 * PClt *tarwo- “bull”: TARBUCELI < *Tarwowxselo- “Hill of the Bull”.
 * PClt *togo- “roof, cover, protection”: Tiobre (a parish) < Toyobre (C11th) < *Tog-yo-bri “Protected Hill-fort”.
 * PClt *tongo- “swear”: 'Tongobria' (Parochialem Suevorum) < *Tongobrigā “Swear – Hill-fort”.
 * PClt *trāg- “beach, tide”: Tragove (a village) < *Tragobri “Hill-fort of the Beach” (It's by the seashore, in a peninsula).
 * PClt *trebā “settlement”: “'Trevonzos”' (a village) < *Trebontios “The Inhabitants”.
 * PClt *wind- “white”: 'Vindius' (a chain of Mountains, modern day Cantabrian Mountains, from Galicia to the Basque Country, usually snowed in the winter).
 * PClt *tegos- “house”: Tadoufe (a village) < Teiadaulfi, Teivente < *Tei Valenti, Teitide < Tei Titi, and several dozens more... This toponyms represents a first element plus a second one, a genitive of a Roman or a Germanic name. They are similar to thousands of other Galician toponyms: Adoufe < Adaulfi, Celavente < *Cella Valenti, Vilartide < *Villar Titi... Probably tei- < *tegy- “house”, and so Tadoufe < Tei Adaulfi “House of Athaulf”. The element tei- must have pass away before the C9th, but not before the C5th, when the Suevi (a Germanic people) established themselves in Galicia.
 * PCt *ebur- “yew”: 'Ebora portus'; 'Ebronanto' (St. Valery of Bierzo: Ordo Cerimonialis) < *Eburonantu “Valley/River of the Yews”.

D.- THEONYMS AND EPITHETS: The Latin inscriptions contains a lot of info, not only on the local culture, but especially on the local language(s), specially the inscriptions with any kind of dedication to local divinities: I.O.M. ANDERONI < PClt *andero- 'lower', cognate of Latin 'inferior'. Gauls (cf. de Bello Gallico, 6.18) considered themselves the descendants of the God of the Underworld (Roman Dis pater = Jupiter). Maybe also Galicians.
 * There's a dedication to Jupiter Optimo Maximo ANDERON, by an officer, procurer of a mine:
 * There are several dedications to Lugus in Galicia which contain a lot of information on the language of the country:LUCOUBU ARQUIENI(...), LUGUBO ARQUIENOBO, LUCOBO AROUSA(...), LUC(...) GUDAROVIS. So, LUCOUBU < PClt *LUGOUBO (dative plural of an u theme word) “To the gods Lugus”, which inform us on the desinence of the accusative of plural.
 * There are many dedications to local gods. Some examples:

BANDUE VERUBRICO “To (the god) Bandu- of (the place called) Verubri”,

BANDUE AETIOBRIGO “To (the god) Bandus of (the place called) Aetiobri”,

CROUGIAI TOUDADIGOE “To the heep or altar of Teutatis (the god of the Tribe)” < PClt *Kroukyā *Toutātikoi: PClt *krowkā 'heep, hill', *Toutā 'tribe, people', *Toutātis, a god (probably, the god of the tribe),

DEO DOMENO CUSU NEMEDECO “To the Lord god Cosu of the Sanctuary”: Nemedeco < *Nemet-āk-yo

NAVIAE SESMACAE “To the goddess Navia of Segisama”.

CANDEBERONIO CAEDURADIO: “Light-bringer (of the) Fort of the Woods” if from *Kandiberonyos Kaytorātyos
 * The are also dedications to other pan-Celtic divinities, as the Matres, Bormanico, Suleis...
 * Some others interesting inscriptions found in Galicia and N Portugal:

NIMIDI FIDUENEARUM, Latin desinences, “(Limit) of the Sanctuary of the (creatures?) born in the Forest” if from < Nemet-, widugen-.

CELICUS FRONTO ARCOBRIGENSIS AMBIMOGIDUS FECIT: 'AMBIMOGIDUS' < PClt *Ambi-mogetos “The Very Mighty” (cf. Gaullish MARTI MOGETIOS).

E.- OPPIDA AND ARCHAEOLOGY Just some links, about oppidas and hill-forts in Galicia:

An extensive guide here, in English: http://media.culturaedeporte.org/cultura/PATRIMONIO/ingles.pdf

Castromao (Coeilobriga): http://www.patrimonio.org/catalogo/ben.php?id=141&lg=gal

Viladonga: http://www.patrimonio.org/catalogo/ben.php?id=14&lg=gal

San Cibrao de Lás (Lanobri): http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castro_de_San_Cibrán_de_Lás

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_1/parcero-cobas_6_1.pdf

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_19/ayan_6_19.pdf

Decorative and material arts of the pre-Roman Galicians:

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_3/gonzalez_ruibal_6_3.pdf

Cheers. Froaringus (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An Addendum on druids and inscriptions from ancient Gallaecia
Ancient inscriptions from Galicia and Northern Portugal shows the evolution:

PClt *druwid- “priest, druid” (cf. Matasovic) > *durwid- (metathesis of r in contact with u or w) > *durbid- (cf. PIE *tawr- > PClt *tarw- > OIr. tarb “bull”):


 * Personal name: DURBIDIE f (incription from Vigo) < *Druwidia “She-druid”.
 * Toponymy: LADRONU[S] / DOVAI BRA[CA]/RUS CASTEL[LO] / DURBEDE (AE 1984, 00458; in reference to a place somewhere near modern day Braga) < *Druwid-.
 * Theonym / epithet: CELEA / CLOUTI / DEO D/URBED/ICO EX V/OTO A(NIMO) [L(IBENS?)] (Guimarães,  CIL 02, 05563) < *Druwid-ik- “To the god of the druids/ To the Druidic god”.

Cheers. Froaringus (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite a screed, Froaringus. But it certainly makes the point that there were Celts in Iberia. Well and Truly. Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 23:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Derek... I really appreciate your words. --Froaringus (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody have doubts about the presence of Celts in Spain in ancient times. The problem is about their extension and their influence. Very difficult to judge it. For sure Froaringus, you are right for many things, but other linguists interpret the words differently. It 's hard to know what is Pre-Celtic or really Celtic. Even the name Galicia is not considered as Celtic by other specialists. Some say that the Latin name of the country derives of the people name Callaeci / Gallaeci(greek Gallaikoi) > Gallaecia > Galicia can be analysed as call(a)- + aici + us / kalla + aiko, suffix *-aiko indigenous in the north west of Spain corresponds to Latin -ensi. Pre-indo european word *calla. But it could be *callai-ko, with call-ai, with -ai = Pre-Latin plural nominativ . Callai "heights / hills" that can be directly compared with the Baskish word garai, that means "high / height", probably found in the Castillan word galayo "bald height" based on *galai-. Cheers Nortmannus (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nortmannus. Sorry, I was out for some days. Mhhh... No. As P. Curchin concludes in his articles about the ancient toponymy of Galicia and Cantabria (http://estudiosgallegos.revistas.csic.es/index.php/estudiosgallegos/article/view/41/41, and http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=2660639&orden=0; he is Canadian, and I doubt he has any nationalistic agenda or bias, or any major need to show that white is black or vice versa), there's very little pre-Indo-European or Basque, about the (Roman) toponomy of the NW of the Iberian peninsula, and so it's probably not a good idea to propose a Basque etymology for a Galician name, as long as it can  be explained from a Celtic or Indo-European etymon. There's nothing strange about that,  since in Roman times Basques were established far off, in actual Guipuzkoa, the Pyrenees, and Aquitania. After all, I'm living 500 km west of the limit of the Basque language, so for me as a Galician, Basques are as (physically) distant as they are for a Breton.
 * Apart of the direct examination of toponyms on a one-per-one basis that Curchin uses, there's another interesting clue on the real extension of Celtic/Basque languages in the N and NW of the Iberia peninsula. It is the name of the Roman foundations. Romans used to found cities in new conquered territories, and the name of these cities frequently was composed of the name of the conqueror plus a second element on the local tongue meaning city or similar. So among the Basques we know of the foundations of Pompailo (today Pamplona, literally “City of Pompeius”) and Graccurris (“? of Graccus), while in Lusitania, Celtiberia or Cantabria they founded places like Augustobriga,  Brutobriga, Caesarobriga, Flaviobriga, Iuliobriga or Octaviolca ( < *(p)olkā- “arable land”). In Gaul: Augustobona, Augustodunum, Caesarodunum, Caesaromagus, Iuliobona.
 * On the significance of the suffix -āiko-, it is not merely an equivalent of Latin -ens-, but an equivalent of -ik- (maybe Brittonic is the same with Brittoniense, but majestic is not **majestense). Its function is deriving adjectives that indicate some kind of relation from nouns, verbs, or even other adjectives, and this capacity have been preserved up to date (andarego, from andar “to walk” + -ego- = “swift walker”, while chairego < chaira + -ego- = “native/relative to the plains”). Again, that the suffix -āiko- proceeds of -āk-yo- by metathesis its not my proposition -I'm but a learned reader-, but de Bernardo-Stempel's one (she's an important scholar on  proto-Celtic, so I'm not to blame :-).
 * On the etymology of Galicia, there's not even a debate about it (cf. Curchin). Galicia derives of the name of the populi of the Callaicoi, inhabitants of the north bank of the Douro river. They were the fist Galician tribe that the Roman fought, and not unusually the later applied the name of the former to all the people living north of them and who shared much the same culture. Later on, the Latinized name Callaecia turned into Gallicia, maybe under the attraction of the name Gallia “Gaul”, so that Callaecia was reinterpreted as “Little Gallia”, or something like that. Etymologically the name Callaicoi is composed of a theme *call-, plus the relational suffix -āiko-, plus the ending -oi (nominative, plural). The theme *Call- is usually considered to be a cognate of Latin collis “hill”, Lituanian kálnas “mountain”, derivatives of PIE *kel-n-, which could have yielded *kall- “hill”. But it could be as well a local reflex of PClt *kallî- “wood, grove” (cf. Matasovic s. v.), and so Callaicoi = “(The people) of the Forest / Hills”. Again, maybe an Iberian or a Basque etymology can be proposed, but against odds (in the aforementioned article Curchin found for Galicia 41% of Celtic toponyms, 36% of non-Celtic IE, 14% of Latin, and left only 9% unclassified, some because merged Celtic and non Celtic IE elements; these unclassified names are: the rivers Bibesia, Laeros and Nebios; and the populations of Arcobriga, Laedia, Laetera, Laiae, Meidunium, Odeio, Portus Artabrorum, Toletum, Ulianca, Vicus Spacorum.)
 * On Celtic / Non-Celtic IE, well, when a PIE */p/ is present, then we can presume that the name/word is not Celtic (as the NW names APANA if from < *Hp-n- “Wealth”, PICTELANCEA, COROPOTI < *Cor-yo-poti- “Lord of the Army” ...); but when it is gone we can also presume that the name is Celtic: C(ASTELO) OLCA, Ledesma, LOVESIA, LATRONIUS...) Equally, if a name shows a vocalic /r/ > /ri/ (-brigs but Germanic -burgs), then it must be Celtic, as it should be Celtic if ē > ī (Olina, DEVORI < *Deiworēgei “To the king of the Gods”...). Or if a certain word derives of a theme that are only known in Celtic or in Celtic and Germanic (NANTIUS, Glandomirum, TREBARUNE, Nemetobriga...) then it should be Celtic. Again, I'm merely a reader, and I'm simply transmiting what I have read -and maybe misunderstood-. Off course, I very much agree that Etymology is anything but a perfect science. Best Regars. – Froaringus (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

This is interesting material, but of course more for the linguistic article (and Celtic toponymy than for the main Celts article). Especially the "DEO D/URBED/ICO" inscription would also be very relevant to our Druid article. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)