File talk:Celts in Europe.png

Talk retrived from Wikipedia

Faroe, Ireland & Isle of Skye

Shouldn't the Faroe Islands also be light-green, since

1. it's a well-known fact, that the first settlers were Iro-Celtic,
2. it was common practice for Norse males who settled in the Faroes to make a stop in the Insular Celtic regions and take a wife,
3. there is suggestive evidence, that the first Christian 'sects' in the Faroes were not Roman-Catholic, which Sigmundur Brestisson brought with him in the year 999, but rather Iro-Celtic, which is based on Greek Christianity? Mulder1982 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Iro-Celtic? Are you grasping for the prefix 'Hiberno-'? I'm not even going to touch the notion that so-called Iro-Celtic Christianity was based on Greek Christianity, which is irrelevant here. Still, perhaps on the strength of Irish hermits, slaves, and wives, there's some argument for colouring the Faroes green. Conceivably also Iceland... QuartierLatin1968 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Isle of Skye marked as a non-Gaelic speaking area? --MacRusgail 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If we were to paint "Celtic" all destinations of Irish emigrants, we would need to include all of the USA too. There is a legend that some Irish monks settled on Faroer prior to the Norse colonization. It is silly to take this for grounds of painting this map. Note that the light-green colour is supposed to represent the situation in the 3rd century BC. It would be misleading to extend the same colour to medieval and modern Irish migrations. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia

On this map Catalonia is soft-greened, intending that there were Celts or some variant of Celtic was spoken. I'm afraid that's not true. It was Iberian, not Celtic. As for the neighbour Aragon, I guess it's the same case. Casaforra (parlem-ne) 09:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Copied from image page:

why were parts of Illyria, Etruria (c.f. here) and Iberia (c.f. here) added to the territory marked in the source image? Don't just change maps without citing your sources. Dbachmann 09:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Casaforra and Dbachman. Catalonia, as well as Roussillon and Gascony, are now grey. But Aragon included part of the very heart of Celtiberia. I'm now following Image:Prehispanic languages.gif for Iberia (I doubt that Lusitanian was Celtic so it's now grey; privately I feel the same about the 'Celta Galaico' region, but have left it light green).

Dbachman's link to the Etruscan civilization map is a red herring, I think, because Celts conquered certain of these areas after the Etruscan heyday. Instead I'll base my northern Italy map on later Roman administrative boundaries – not a definitive solution, but it does make room for the Ligurians. Celts in the Veneto or Istria? Any thoughts?

I've also adjusted the Danube Celtic area slightly to ensure that all of the territory of the Scordisci is included. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. QuartierLatin1968 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your pompt reaction. Dbachmann 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Iberia

Hello everyone. I see some changes have been made to this image. However the changes regarding present Portuguese territory are not correct - and I'm not speaking about the Lusitanians (although the consensual modern hipotesys is that they were Proto-Celt, which is quite close to Celt...). The grey area of the Lusitanians is excessive and the southern part of Portugal (the Algarve), should be green - even in Image:Prehispanic languages.gif it states "ancient south-lusitanian area afterwards celticized", in fact it was an area initially inhabited by the Cynetes or Conii (probably Tartessian) and later colonized by the Celtici of Alentejo. You should look up this detailed and sourced scholar ethnographic map of Iberia in 200 BC. Please correct the mistakes - or if you want I can do it! The Ogre 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The ethnographic and linguistic panorama of the Iberian Peninsula at about 200 BCE (at the end of the Second Punic War), based on the map I mentioned just above (a pdf version, with extensive and detailed information in Portuguese on the criteria used, as well as the long bibliography used to source the map can be found here), done by Portuguese Archeologist Luís Fraga (luisfraga@arqueotavira.com), from the "Campo Arqueológico de Tavira" (Tavira Archeological Camp - official site), in Tavira, Algarve (Portugal), looks somethings like this one I just made:

The Ogre 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the Lusitanians and the Vettones it is my opinion that they should be coloured in some way, let's say a greenish grid or something, The Lusitanians are clearly and without any sort of doubt Indo-European, they were most probably part of a migratory wave from Central Europe that predates or accompanies the Celts. And in fact they could be described as Pre-Celts instead or Proto-Celts. Many, however, prefer the latter designation because the first one hides the connection found between the Lusitanian language and other Celtic languages. As far as we can tell, given the reduced amount of writing left to us (3 inscriptions, some toponyms and ethnonyms...), is that Lusitanian is not quite Celt namely because it present some archaic traits (such as not having lost the initial P, as in porc/um - pig, generally orc/us or something similar in other Celtic languages). Authors like Scarlat Lambrino and Adolfo Schulten did consider it a variety of Celtic, probably derived, the ethnic group and the language, from the Celtiberian group of the Lusones. The Ogre 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The image for Iberia should, therefore, be the one bellow. What das everyone think? Cheers! The Ogre 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good academic sources that back up this view, and even go to the point of considering all of the Algarve (in southern Portugal), and the Lusitanian-Vettone ensemble, as Celtic, are:

• P. Kruta (2000), Les Celtes: Histoire et Dictionnaire, Paris, Laffont, p. 3.
• J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams (1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, London & Chicago, Fitzroy Dearborn, p.97.

Hoping to hear from you...! The Ogre 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the map

Five days have passed since my last posting and request. Faced with no reply, I'm changing the map myself. I hope the references I provided make this a consensual change. Thank you. The Ogre 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Shetland

I realize the Shetlands today are part of Scotland, and Scotland is one of the "commonly recognized Celtic nations" of Pan-Celticism. But Shetland was only pawned to Scotland in 1468, and it has had nothing to do with anything Celtic since at least AD 900.

Another question would be if Celtic was ever spoken in Shetland. I suppose this is unknown. Is there any evidence the Picts ever ruled Shetland? St Ninian's hoard has "8th century Celtic silver", but this is the Viking Age. Who would bury "Celtic silver" on a remote island? That's right, the Vikings.

It is possible, or indeed plausible, that the Picts colonized Shetland say around AD 500, to be ousted by the Norse around 800, but I would like to see some reference at least supporting the speculation at the Picts or Shetland article before we confidently paint the Shetlands green in this map. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Did the Picts speak a Celtic language in 500 A.D.? AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably, yes. This has been disputed in the past, but it seems the consensus now is that it was most likely a form of Celtic. --Dbachmann (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Celts in Dobruja/Budjak

How do we reconcile this map with the presence of Celts in the areas of Dobruja (south-eastern Romania) and Budjak (southern historical Moldavia)? We have settlements such as Noviodunum, Arrubium and Aliobrix, as well as various celtic tribes in Dacia and Thrace. A possible correction--Codrin.B (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)