Talk:Celtic tribes of the British Isles

Untitled

Is there a way we can make a visual map of these tribes. I saw one once, I wish I could locate it, I believe it was on www.bbc.co.uk however my computer had a terrible virus a while back so I'm not sure if it's still on there or where it is or any thing! But, I'm not sure. Jim Bart 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

problem

Thing is, there were very few Celtic tribes in Britain and Ireland. While they shared broadly the same culture, none of the peoples of either island ever described themselves as Celts. So there is a fundamental flaw with this article. Sorry to be a spoilsport!

Absolutely. The term "Celtic" has no real relevance, as a relatively recent invention, but as a label it's just too convenient. In many ways it is like the hideously misused term "viking" - technically wrong almost every time you see it used, but everybody knows what is meant when they see it. Lianachan 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And that's the point. Although they didn't call themselves that, we call them that. We need a name to identify them, and this is it. This is a fairly normal case. Most countries or peoples aren't given their real names by foreigners. It's a good point, but ultimately I don't think it ought to be changed. ---G.T.N. (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand this logic. That's like saying "Germans don't exist, because they call themselves the Deutsche!" Celt is the word we use for members of this cultural/linguistic group in modern English, it's got nothing to do with what they call(ed) themselves. --86.135.122.192 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the word "tribe" is far more problematical than "Celtic". The standard interpretation is that these groups were "tribes" before the Roman conquest and were reorganised as "civitates" after - but the word used in the Latin sources is civitates in both instances. If we look at the only Celtic societies that are reasonably well understood - medieval Ireland and Scotland - we see that the Irish dynasties and Scottish clans are not ethnic groups with fixed territories, they're aristocratic kin-groups out of whom the rulers are chosen, they're mobile, intermarry, and establish their rule wherever they are able to, and do not include the mass of the farming population.

If early Britain worked on the same basis, and the sources and particularly the numismatics are consistent with that - Cunobelinus ruling both Camulodunum and Verulamium, but apparently coming to power in both separately; Eppillus first ruling Chichester, then both Chichester and Silchester, then east Kent while his brother Tincomarus takes over Chichester and Silchester; Caratacus gaining territory in the south while his father is still alive, and being accepted as leader of the Silures after his father's lands are conquered by the Romans - then, for example, we could regard the Catuvellauni not as the ethnic group that was based around Verulamium which conquered the neighbouring ethnic group of the Trinovantes, but as simply the family to which Tincomarus, his sons and grandsons, who were able to establish their rule at both Verulamium and Camulodunum, belonged. The Romans are known to have ruled many of their provinces through patronage of local aristocratic oligarchies, and I think they did the same in Britain, hence the civitates of Roman Britain. Of course, unless I can find a source that argues the same thing, this is all original research. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Merged

This article has now been merged with List of Celtic tribes as per unopposed proposal. Sarah777 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, this article surely had enough content...--Cameron* 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I could see that wasn't included in List of Celtic tribes; and I spent some time and effort merging them. Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)