Keltoi meant "Barbarian" in Greek. Picti is Latin.
Celt
1607, from L. Celta, singular of Celtæ, from Gk. Keltoi, Herodotus' word for the Gauls (who were also called Galatai). Used by the Romans of continental Gauls but apparently not of the British Celtic tribes. Wrong again
don't know much do you
"The peoples who we may now recognise as the Continental Celts are referred to by a variety of names in the classical sources. The Roman historians writing of the migrations from north of the Alps to the Po valley and beyond called them Galli, and this tradition was followed by Polybius, to whom they were Galatae, a name also commonly used in other Greek sources. Most of the first century BC writers, however, realised that these names were interchangeable with the Greek Keltoi and Latin Celtae. Indeed Caesar, writing of the inhabitants of central Gaul, specifically says 'we call [them] Gauls, though in their own language they are called Celts.' The second century AD Greek writer Pausanius also stresses that Keltoi is a more long-established term than Galli. The simplest way to explain this apparent confusion would be to accept that Celtae/Keltoi was the general name by which the broad sweep of peoples stretching from north of the Alps to Iberia were known to the classical world, and knew themselves, and that Galli/Galatae was a specific term applied to those tribes who chose to migrate to the south and south-east. Caesar's phrase 'we call them Gauls' may be thought to take with it the implication that the term had a Mediterranean origin. One possibility is that it comes from an Indo-European word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy', in which case it can hardly be an ethnonym." p2.
B. Cunliffe: The Ancient Celts (London. Penguin Books.1999)
ISBN0140254226
Britain was first called the Pretannic islands by Pythias of Massalia in the 4th century BC. Hence the British were Pretanni.
B.Cunliffe The Ancient Celts p4.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Keltoi meant "Barbarian" in Greek. Picti is Latin.
are you sure? though its been lo these many years, i was a classics major, and at least in attic greek the noun i remember for barbarian was 'o barbaros. unless keltoi had a specialized tribe-specific meaning (my liddell & scott is 200 miles north, so i can't check right now).
john
Last edited by john on Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The peoples who we may now recognise as the Continental Celts are referred to by a variety of names in the classical sources. The Roman historians writing of the migrations from north of the Alps to the Po valley and beyond called them Galli, and this tradition was followed by Polybius, to whom they were Galatae, a name also commonly used in other Greek sources. Most of the first century BC writers, however, realised that these names were interchangeable with the Greek Keltoi and Latin Celtae. Indeed Caesar, writing of the inhabitants of central Gaul, specifically says 'we call [them] Gauls, though in their own language they are called Celts.' The second century AD Greek writer Pausanius also stresses that Keltoi is a more long-established term than Galli. The simplest way to explain this apparent confusion would be to accept that Celtae/Keltoi was the general name by which the broad sweep of peoples stretching from north of the Alps to Iberia were known to the classical world, and knew themselves, and that Galli/Galatae was a specific term applied to those tribes who chose to migrate to the south and south-east. Caesar's phrase 'we call them Gauls' may be thought to take with it the implication that the term had a Mediterranean origin. One possibility is that it comes from an Indo-European word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy', in which case it can hardly be an ethnonym." p2.
i can't be 100% sure of course because i may be confused but they were called Gauls because the roman word for France was Gallia
so basically its like saying the same as english to england
one is an inhabitant and the other the place they inhabit
The peoples who we may now recognise as the Continental Celts are referred to by a variety of names in the classical sources. The Roman historians writing of the migrations from north of the Alps to the Po valley and beyond called them Galli, and this tradition was followed by Polybius, to whom they were Galatae, a name also commonly used in other Greek sources. Most of the first century BC writers, however, realised that these names were interchangeable with the Greek Keltoi and Latin Celtae. Indeed Caesar, writing of the inhabitants of central Gaul, specifically says 'we call [them] Gauls, though in their own language they are called Celts.' The second century AD Greek writer Pausanius also stresses that Keltoi is a more long-established term than Galli. The simplest way to explain this apparent confusion would be to accept that Celtae/Keltoi was the general name by which the broad sweep of peoples stretching from north of the Alps to Iberia were known to the classical world, and knew themselves, and that Galli/Galatae was a specific term applied to those tribes who chose to migrate to the south and south-east. Caesar's phrase 'we call them Gauls' may be thought to take with it the implication that the term had a Mediterranean origin. One possibility is that it comes from an Indo-European word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy', in which case it can hardly be an ethnonym." p2.
i can't be 100% sure of course because i may be confused but they were called Gauls because the roman word for France was Gallia
so basically its like saying the same as english to england
one is an inhabitant and the other the place they inhabit
"omnia gallia in tres partes divisa est". probably slightly misquoted, but the opening line to julius caesar's accout of the roman/gallic cars. " all of gaul is divided into three parts." and caesar went into some detail to differentiate the various gallic tribes, using his interpretation of existing tribal names. as caesar was actually on the ground, learning firsthand, he fits Thucidides' requirement that good history generally is written by people who actually participated in the event horizon. it would appear that the word gaul was used to describe a broad spectrum of tribal peoples, who, from the archaeological record would appear to be celtic (indo-european neolithic) in origon. i do not remember if keltoi was used as broadly, but i'm sure going to check it out. i do know that 'o barbaros was used as a generic term to describe outsiders or invaders.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none
hows this
Perhaps you were thinking of Wales which is derived from the Germanic word Walha, meaning stranger or foreigner, the same root used for Wallachia
IIRC it was Ceasar who first described Celts as Barbarians in an attempt to justify his slaughter of them shortly after he discovered they had Gold mines. bloody politicians eh
it was also used to describe the Parthians in an attempt to justify slaughtering them
big mistake
53 B.C.E. – Parthians defeat Romans at Battle of Carrhae (Harran), Triumvir Crassus killed; 34,000 legionnaires captured or killed, 10,000 led in captivity to Margiana
36 B.C.E. – Marc Antony defeated by Parthians
232 A.C.E– Severus Alexander celebrates a (failed) triumph over the Parthians
241-272 A.C.E. Shapur I invades Roman Empire(252-261), capturing the Emperor Valerian in 260 and thereafter using him as a footstool for mounting his horse
rofl
Last edited by marduk on Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:shucks!
Just thought it was interesting, honest!
Oh, it was.
Just overkill in my case, champ!
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Once a king, always a king...but once a Knight is enough!
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Actually it's "omnia Gallia dividio en tres partes est"
well, my latin was always suspect.........and i haven't read it in the mother language for twentyfive years. but the rest of my comments stand. and i swear i remember divisa est, might have been the translation.
Actually Gallium seems to derive from the Latin word for rooster 'Gallus'
and Gallium means the country of the rooster as thisanimal held a great importance in the life of the Gallic tribes .It is still the mascott of the french and figures in the flag of the Walloons,the frenchspeaking part of Belgium .
Is there any evidence anywhere that the peoples we know call 'picts' and 'celts' were a homogenous, ethnic group?
In other words, maybe there was no specific arrival of Picts or Celts per se - just small groups arriving at different times who merged with the local populace. Much like the Asians and Africans have been doing in Britain for the past 2,000 years .... And some of these groups introduced new ideas, words and building methods. The Picts and Celts living in Albion in Classical times are then no different to the Yorkshiremen and Cornishmen living in Britain today: interelated peoples with no specific ethnic difference but with a diversity of ethnicity which may nonetheless vary slightly from region to region (as Yorkshirement today might onclude more Asians, for example).
No-one argues over whether when the Yorkshiremen and Cornishmen arrived in Britain, or when, or from whence they came.
RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:
"The Picts have languished in the non-Indo-European ghetto long enough, it is high time they were acknowledged as being as fully Celtic as their Irish and British neighbours, and studied accordingly".
K. Forsyth Language in Pictland p37
See also the excerpts I posted from Sally Foster in Picts, Gaels & Scots, Barry Cunliffe in The Ancient Celts, and Miranda Green in The Celtic World. Despite what some people would have you believe, there's no reason to assume they weren't the same homogenous group.
There were mass migrations of Celts in the 5th and 6th centuries BC-much like the Angles, Saxons & Jutes 1,000 years later. There are also strong cultural links-the Arras culture- between the Parisii tribe who lived in Yorkshire and their cousins in Gaul. It's hard to believe that was unique. Why wouldn't all the Celtic tribes in the British Isles be related to others on the Continent? The English Channel is only 20-odd miles wide at Calais, and later settlers made it from further away than Gaul.
but they were called Gauls because the roman word for France was Gallia
