Talk:Celts/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Celts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Roman Depiction of Dying Gaul Best Representation of These Persons?
Is there no extant inconography of Celts made by Celts themselves? Should an image made to celebrate their subjugation be one of the leading representations of these peoples? 75.111.167.10 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC) jnm
- The sculpture group are Roman copies of originals celebrating a victory of the Anatolian Kingdom of Pergamum over the Galatian Celts, so they are really Greek in origin. The Iron Age Celts did not go in for naturalistic representation of the world, humans included, so no there is nothing from Celtic artists to compare. The sculptures are celebrated for their pathos, the sympathetic treatment of their subjects and their heroic depiction of defiance in defeat, as such I can see no cogent objection to their use here. Urselius (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- See Celtic art. There is not nothing, but very little indeed from the ancient Celts, with the early medieval ones not much better. I've added two of the most famous ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Other than the sculpture known as the Vacheres Warrior, which is obviously copying Roman exemplars, there is virtually nothing approaching a naturalistic depiction of a person in ancient Celtic art. Human and humanised deity representations occur, but are all more or less stylised. Urselius (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Untenable distinctions, but whatever. You think Roman sculpture is "naturalistic"? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "untenable distinctions"? Please explain in detail. Yes, Roman portraiture is universally known to have been naturalistic, far more so than the generally idealised products of Classical Greek art. This naturalism was based on ancestor veneration, and was preceded by the religious use of wax death masks. For the Roman, the accurate rendition of a person's features was of great importance. No ancient Celtic representation of a human face would be recognisable as a particular person, but Roman art abounds in such. This is too such an extent, that Roman sculptures exist where the very ordinary, mundane and recognisable face of a particular person is ludicrously grafted onto a 'stock' heroic athlete's body. Urselius (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- We don't have any Roman portraits of Celts either, so that's no help for the ip's issue. I'm not inclined to "explain in detail", thanks, but you might ask yourself how much Roman sculpture reaches whatever your threshold for "naturalistic" is, and whether it matters for the question here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your assertion tends to fall by the wayside, if you cannot, or will not, support it. There is the profile - definitely a Celt and most probably Vercingetorix - on a silver denarius of the moneyer, L. Hostilius Saserna. Also we have coin portraits of Roman emperors of Gaulish origins, such as Carausius, who was a Menapian Gaul. As for a definition of naturalism in portraiture, I would go for a very basic approach of, 'would the person depicted be recognisable in the street'? This works for me. Urselius (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- As Gainsborough famously pointed out, that only works if we have the person to hand to make the comparison, which in Roman cases we don't. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- However, if we have multiple images of the same Roman they are recognisable. Furthermore, they are recognisable as particular human beings and not archetypes differentiated by adjuncts - such as the individualised crowns of Sassanid shahs. Urselius (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- As Gainsborough famously pointed out, that only works if we have the person to hand to make the comparison, which in Roman cases we don't. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your assertion tends to fall by the wayside, if you cannot, or will not, support it. There is the profile - definitely a Celt and most probably Vercingetorix - on a silver denarius of the moneyer, L. Hostilius Saserna. Also we have coin portraits of Roman emperors of Gaulish origins, such as Carausius, who was a Menapian Gaul. As for a definition of naturalism in portraiture, I would go for a very basic approach of, 'would the person depicted be recognisable in the street'? This works for me. Urselius (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- We don't have any Roman portraits of Celts either, so that's no help for the ip's issue. I'm not inclined to "explain in detail", thanks, but you might ask yourself how much Roman sculpture reaches whatever your threshold for "naturalistic" is, and whether it matters for the question here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "untenable distinctions"? Please explain in detail. Yes, Roman portraiture is universally known to have been naturalistic, far more so than the generally idealised products of Classical Greek art. This naturalism was based on ancestor veneration, and was preceded by the religious use of wax death masks. For the Roman, the accurate rendition of a person's features was of great importance. No ancient Celtic representation of a human face would be recognisable as a particular person, but Roman art abounds in such. This is too such an extent, that Roman sculptures exist where the very ordinary, mundane and recognisable face of a particular person is ludicrously grafted onto a 'stock' heroic athlete's body. Urselius (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Untenable distinctions, but whatever. You think Roman sculpture is "naturalistic"? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Other than the sculpture known as the Vacheres Warrior, which is obviously copying Roman exemplars, there is virtually nothing approaching a naturalistic depiction of a person in ancient Celtic art. Human and humanised deity representations occur, but are all more or less stylised. Urselius (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Celtic Warrior Represented in the Braganza Brooch, Hellenistic art, 250–200 BC - I agree that the "Dying Gaul" is a particularly unhelpful image. It basically shows a naked man with a moustache, with the only discernably Celtic feature being his neck band. I don't think this can readily be described as visually descriptive. I find the Braganza Brooch better in that it actually depicts Celtic culture, artistic tastes and weaponry. While this was made by a Greek craftsman, it was done so for a Celtic Iberian client who presumably knew what they were about and would have dictated the motifs. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should keep it, but no objection to moving it down - even more so for the Ludovisi Gaul. Even if not naturalistic enough for Urselius, the Czech head and Glauberg Prince I added are the most powerful and evocative images imo (the "Dying Gaul" also) and should be higher. The article is still a tad under-illustrated, apart from maps. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would recommend the merits of the Gaulish 'Vacheres Warrior' sculpture. Though looking Roman, it is a Celtic sculpture of a Celtic subject and yes, the Romans stole a lot of Celtic military equipment. The specifically Celtic features are the torc and the shield, which is flat and not dished, like all Roman scuta. Also for appraisal, images of Vecingetorix on Roman coinage. These also show the Celtic habit of warriors lime-washing their hair into intimidating spikes. Urselius (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Vacheres sculpture is often described as depicting a 'Roman Gaul', and the Roman-style chainmail is quite distinctive. Overall, the statue is generally quite Roman in style, not in fantastic nick and the most characteristically Celtic part, the oval shield, is damaged. So not really sold on this one. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would recommend the merits of the Gaulish 'Vacheres Warrior' sculpture. Though looking Roman, it is a Celtic sculpture of a Celtic subject and yes, the Romans stole a lot of Celtic military equipment. The specifically Celtic features are the torc and the shield, which is flat and not dished, like all Roman scuta. Also for appraisal, images of Vecingetorix on Roman coinage. These also show the Celtic habit of warriors lime-washing their hair into intimidating spikes. Urselius (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should keep it, but no objection to moving it down - even more so for the Ludovisi Gaul. Even if not naturalistic enough for Urselius, the Czech head and Glauberg Prince I added are the most powerful and evocative images imo (the "Dying Gaul" also) and should be higher. The article is still a tad under-illustrated, apart from maps. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is a bit like objecting to the use of photographs of Native American leaders, such as Roman Nose or Tatanka Iyotanka, because they were taken by wasi'chu photographers using wasi'chu technology. Urselius (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a horrible analogy, not least because photographs are always inherently accurate in depicting something, regardless of who took them, in stark contrast to A) any form of artistic interpretation, and B) any depiction made after the fact or detached from its subject. And on a page about Celts, it is commonsense to find something at least reasonably Celt-ish as the lead image. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- My argument was deliberately reductio ad absurdum, to highlight the poor argument that insists that images of an ethnic group have to be endogenous. The Braganza brooch doesn't work, it is of a small object and therefore lacks detail and distinctiveness, and is a Greek object anyway. The dying Gaul (better images of it exist on Wikimedia) has the advantages of being larger and more distinct. In addition to the torc, the sculpture has specifically Celtic referents in the spiky, lime-washed hair and the moustache worn without a beard; also the face is of a physical type neither Greek, Italian nor Anatolian in appearance, and because of this is probably based on first hand knowledge. There must have been many Galatian prisoners and slaves in Pergamum, following their defeat. Urselius (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a horrible analogy, not least because photographs are always inherently accurate in depicting something, regardless of who took them, in stark contrast to A) any form of artistic interpretation, and B) any depiction made after the fact or detached from its subject. And on a page about Celts, it is commonsense to find something at least reasonably Celt-ish as the lead image. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is a bit like objecting to the use of photographs of Native American leaders, such as Roman Nose or Tatanka Iyotanka, because they were taken by wasi'chu photographers using wasi'chu technology. Urselius (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022
 | This edit request to Celts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Coutinhas, José Manuel (2006), Aproximação à identidade etno-cultural dos Callaici Bracari, Porto. Josemanuelcoutinhas (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
“Are” twice
- I apologize for unintentionally adding two identical sections to the page. The first time I tried wikimedia software seemed to be telling me it didn’t work, and so I tried again, not realizing it would now be a duplicate. Feel free to delete one- but please not both- of them, as I am not quite sure how. Thanks! 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6D87:1369:B5E2:2B24 (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
“Are”
Currently in the lede it says that the “Celts are a collection of…” etc. (emphasis added.) However, at the top it disambiguates this page as being specifically about the Ancient Celts, rather than any still-living people- there being a separate article for that. This seems to me rather contradictory, so I would have gone ahead and changed it but wanted to make sure I was not simply ill-informed of some prior consensus regarding this, as I am certainly no expert on the article’s topic and don’t want to make a change that to the average Wikipedia seems perfectly logical at first and even a mere minor correction but is actually creating a historical inaccuracy, and thus I am reaching out on the talk page first. Any thoughts? 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6D87:1369:B5E2:2B24 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. It does seem a bit strange to start of saying "The Celts are..." in a page that is about ancient/medieval Celts. It is not wrong per se though because the Celts didn't vanish, so "The Celts were..." would also be problematic. As long as the page is properly focused, that line in the lead is not wrong. It could be changed to some different and better phrasing. The whole sentence could be changed. Any suggestions? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Edit request
| This edit request to Celts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
adding a citation to this section under Celts#Alps and Italy
Later the Roman army was routed at the battle of Allia and Rome was sacked in 390 BC by the Senones.[1]
- ^ One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Senones". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 647–648.
Phantastra (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Early Celtic Culture article
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if there was a separate article which goes over daily life and cultural practices of ancient La Tene (and possibly also Hallstatt) people more comprehensively. Considering that there is an article on Early Germanic Culture, I'd say there's no problem in doing the same for an arguably more significant ancient group. Troopersho (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- What, something like Hallstatt culture and La Tene culture? Early Germanic culture is a rather dodgy Krakkos effort, and a model of how not to do it, imo. It doesn't make clear what period it covers, & pieces of information from a span of over 1,000 years are presented pretty randomly. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Something like krakkos' article, but specifying what time period and archeological complex is being covered, would not be a bad idea imo. Perhaps for each section we could first mention how something may have been in the hallstatt culture and then talk about how it was in the la tene. -- Troopersho (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- What, something like Hallstatt culture and La Tene culture? Early Germanic culture is a rather dodgy Krakkos effort, and a model of how not to do it, imo. It doesn't make clear what period it covers, & pieces of information from a span of over 1,000 years are presented pretty randomly. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- The very idea of 'the Celts' as an ancient people is contentious, and the idea that Hallstatt and La Tene represent 'Celtic' culture is a 19th-century invention, dating from the time that those archaeological sites were discovered. Although the term 'Celts' appears once or twice in classical literature, no one knows what it actually means. It was only revived in the 18th century, after long disuse, and is largely mythological. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, we know (in broad strokes, not that much of what you say is actually accurate). Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Indo-European etymology for Kaltoi
The IE word 'kal' is given the article as meaning 'to hide', whereas I had always understood it to mean 'to protect' as in eu-calypt (Gk: truly protected). Thus, if so, the original root for the word 'Celt' may mean to guard; ie a powerful protector.
In ancient Greece, celtic (greek: κέλτης) meant horseman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoplous (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Turkey
Turkey was not a state back when it is mentioned. So either refer to it as "where modern Turkey is now" or "Persian empire / Roman empire / Alexander the Great's conquest" depending on the timeline you are refering to. Ekarathanassi (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- You have singled out just one modern country. What's your opinion about Ireland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland (all of them also mentioned in the lede) then? –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)