Jump to content

Talk:Celtiberians

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

Two different languages... at least!!

[edit]

These Celtiberian articles are actually full of confusion about the Celtic languages that once were spoken by old Pre-Roman Hispanic people. Celtiberian language is actually a group of related dialects mainly spoken in central Spain and upper Ebro's valley. Hispano-Celtic or Iberian-Proto-Celtic is another group of extinct Celtic languages spoken all along the Iberian Atlantic shores by Lusitanian, Germanian and Artabric tribes. They must not be merged one group with another.


Celtiberians had no cultural contacts with the Caucasian Iberians (now territory of Eastern Georgia)...

[edit]
Dear Wetman, it is not a "race-nationalist agenda for Georgia". The "Iberian-Caucasian" theory is a well-known theory about Proto-Iberian tribes (4th-2nd millenniums BC) and Iberian-Caucasian peoples. Levzur 18 Feb 2004


It suddenly occurs to me that an expression used by the scholar Jesus Rodriguez Ramos (see External Links at the entry) may have caused confusion: "Levantine Iberian" language and inscriptions. This is a translation from a Spanish thought and simply means "Eastern Spain," much as "Meridional Iberia" merely means Southern Spain. No connections with the Eastern Mediterranean or "Levant" is implied. If this is the confusion, may we remove the incorrect sentence noted above? Wetman 04:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, since these connections are "well-known," User:Levzur would simply offer us a couple of External links to articles on the web explaining how archaeologists have come to these conclusions. Trade goods from the 4th millennium BCE perhaps? Unlikely thought, until we hear to the contrary. Making an assertion more aggressively doesn't make it more convincing. BTW, citations from articles published in Georgian in a local archaeological society's newsletter, don't genuinely help Wikipedia readers.Wetman 22:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone else included in thiis "We" Wetman refers to please post some more details about the "We" refered to? No delusions of gradeur I hope.Zestauferov 08:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...but we didn't actually ever receive any corroborating sources after all, did we. (Wetman)

Singular v plural

[edit]

Shouldn't this page be entitled "Celtiberian", as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)? If no one objects within 48 hours I'll move it there.Binabik80 18:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a shibboleth in some Wikipedian minds. In ordinary discourse, "Celtiberian" or "Burgundian" would refer to a language, whereas "Celtiberians" or "Burgundians" would refer to a people. Wikipedese Dorian for normal "Dorians" reminds one that there is a musical mode to disambiguate; but "Dorians" simply are the Dorians. Since the word "Celtiberian" denotes a cultural mix rather than a people, an individual "Celtiberian" is particularly infelicitous. As long as there's a redirect, it's okay. But Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) does say "If you make a page title which is a plural, always consider making a redirect from the singular to aid linking. This is particularly important because Wikipedians tend to assume that the article title will be in the singular." And you remember what Thoreau said about consistency... --Wetman 19:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a translation for this original research?

[edit]

Bit by bit the article has developed the following text: " Enough has been preserved to suggest that, the Celtiberian language was Q-Celtic (like Goidelic), and not P-Celtic like Gaulish. Since Brythonic is P-Celtic too, but more closely related to Goidelic than to Gaulish (Insular Celtic), it followed that the P/Q division is paraphyletic." With a few more words, could this radical suggestion that the standard Q-Celtic/P-Celtic division is mistaken, be expressed in a more reader-friendly fashion? --Wetman 15:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That Celtiberian was in fact Q-Celtic is confirmed in J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson, 1989), ISBN 0-500-05052-X. (p. 106) The P/Q alternation figures not only in Celtic, but also in Italic as well; cf. Oscan pis, pid, Latin quis, quid. The existence of this alternation in Latin as well as Celtic is one of the reasons why an "Italo-Celtic" subgroup within Indo-European was proposed. My understanding is that this is no longer a favoured hypothesis, but the P/Q alternation seems to have been a general "areal" feature of western IE generally. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I added your (Mallory 1989 p 106) ref at the appropriate place.--Wetman 22:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the "alternation" is a feature: "Q" is the original state. The sound change Q->P occurred several times, more or less independently, in Oscan, Gaulish and Welsh. Granted, the Gaulish/Oscan change may be areally related. The question was whether Welsh made the change independently, or if it was introduced to Britain later than Goidelic, so what was at stake was the existence of a common Insular celtic. Since the Q->P change in Welsh was the only indication of that (I think), and several good reasons pointed to common Insular Celtic, I do think that the Welsh sound change now is widely considered to have occurred independently. It is, after all, a pretty trivial change, especially since the celts had lost original p long ago, so that there was a gap in the phonological system. Whether the Italic Q->P change was induced by contact with Gauls is, I suppose, anyone's guess, but it doesn't really impinge on the classification of the Celtic languages: I wouldn't know how this may point to Italo-Celtic, since the change would be clearly secondary to Proto-Italo-Celtic. There are other important hints for Italo-Celtic, such as the i-Genitive, that have now fallen from favour (hardly anyone believes in Italo-Celtic any longer). In a nutshell, Gaulish an Welsh ps are considered paraphyletic. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Separate language article

[edit]

Would anyone mind me breaking the language material out and starting a separate Celtiberian language article? The other Celtic languages have articles of their own separate from the article about the people. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

I don't object, but I don't think the article's length really warrants a split yet, either. btw, in the Celtic languages template, it would be advisable to mark Lepontic and Galatian as Gaulish dialects. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
Is enough known about them to be sure that they are? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
for Lepontic, yes. Lepontic is also called "Old Gaulish". FOr Galatian, it is an indirect assumption. The Celts immigrated to Anatolia in the 3rd c. BC. This is contemporary to the Gaulish inscriptions in the Greek alphabet. The Galatians emigrated from Central Europe, so it is simply likely that they spoke a Gaulish dialect, and nothing that is known about the language contradicts that assumption. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
At first, yes; but if, as the article Galatian language indicates, Galatian was spoken up to the 4th century AD, it's not unlikely Gaulish and Galatian had developed enough over the seven hundred years that Galatian could no longer be considered a dialect of Gaulish. But of course we can never know, unless someone discovers more Galatian for us! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

Thanks to Wetman's recent additions to the History section, I decided breaking out a separate Celtiberian language article would not leave too stubby an article here, so I was bold and did it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a link?

[edit]

Since this page displays one of the Botorrita tablets, without any discussion, would it be appropriate to add a link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Botorrita_plaque, where it is discussed at length? It is of much more than just linguistic interest, in spite of the difficulties in reading it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by It'sWhom (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Galicians, Asturians etc

[edit]

I think there should be a note that the Galician and Asturian etc claim to be Modern Celts is based in part on the Celtiberian history. --MacRusgail 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, and noting that the supposed connection, whether there is an authentic cultural continuity or not, does inform the parameters of what is permissable to state about Celtiberians in non-professional public discourse. That would offer a basis for some readers' judgment of the degree of neutrality that may be permitted to this article. --Wetman 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a note that the Galician and Asturian etc claim to be Modern Celts is based in part on the Celtiberian history.

Sorry? old Galicians and Asturians weren't celtiberians. So, galicians and asturians are modern celts because they are related someway to celtiberians while modern people of celtiberian descent aren`t? crazy.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.16.10 (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urine applied to teeth?

[edit]

Catullus 37 and Catullus 39 reference the Celtiberians as using urine for its tooth-whitening properties. Was this practice shared among other tribes, or was it a unique Celtiberian habit?123.109.218.209 13:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migrations

[edit]

I'm a bit aware of some discussion on Wikipedia about this section, but I think it still needs work. The present reference no longer seems to exist, and I think it is outdated in any case. And should be restricted to Celtiberians, not Celts in general surely?Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the Basque stuff, but that has nothing to do with Celts, nor does the Irish people article mention Celts, and of course you can't use Wikipedia articles as references.Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two maps the same

[edit]

The first two maps on this page are Wikified versions of the same map by Fraga. Are both really needed?

I don't want to hurt any feelings, but the second of the two maps looks sharper and nicer to me. Just my two cents. — Lawrence King (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celtiberians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtiberians&oldid=1206142679"