Talk:Celtic art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe there should be a section on Hallstatt and La Tène art?

The term "Celt" was not developed in the 17th century; it is classical. Julius Caesar refers to the "Gauls, who in their own language call themselves Celts". It was a familiar term to Greek geographers long before then. What's new (17th/18th century) was the extension of the term to the peoples of the British Isles (and their Breton descendents), since in classical times Celtic was synonymous with Gaulish and referred only to peoples on the Continent. I suppose I'll try to tinker with that sentence, but it's really trying to do two things at once: describe a linguistic/demographic/archaelogical evolution that did actually happen, and describe the separate history of the term Celtic (which like any term can be historicized or problematized). QuartierLatin 1968 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed there should be info on iron age in continental Europe - Hallstatt and La Tène art, and I have a useful book here, but people keep wanting me to do more janitorial duties, so haven't yet filled in stubs i left. Will try to get round to it, but welcome anyone who can do it earlier. Regarding the origins, the tinkering looks fine to me, ...dave souza 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iona

From Book of Kells:

There are at least five competing theories about the place of origin for the manuscript. First the book may have been written in Iona and brought to Kells, in its current, incomplete state and never finished. Second, the book may have been begun at Iona and brought to Kells where it was brought to its current, incomplete state. Third, the manuscript may have been produced in the scriptorium at Kells. Fourth, it may have been produced in the north of England, perhaps at Lindisfarne, and brought to Iona and from there to Kells. Finally, it may have been the product of an unknown monastery in Scotland. Although the question of the exact location of the book's production will probably never be answered conclusively, the second theory, that it was begun at Iona and finished at Kells, is currently the most widely accepted. Regardless of which theory is true, it is certain that Kells was produced by Columban monks closely associated with the community at Iona.

Please lets not make this article a battleground over Irish nationalism. -- Stbalbach 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Third, the manuscript may have been produced in the scriptorium at Kells. Don't be so silly, the article must reflect the true history. If you can rephrase things, then that is perfect with me. Please read the article Book of Kells before you edit. BTW, I am Irish, and very proud to be so.Bluegold 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

the second theory, that it was begun at Iona and finished at Kells, is currently the most widely accepted. --Stbalbach 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The original article didn't reflect that. Nobody is 100% sure on its exact origins. - Bluegold 05:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if by "original article" you mean the Book of Kells article or the Celtic art article. However the assertion that Kells was started on Iona and finished at Kells has been part of the article since the beginning of the article. To quote from the original version by Jazz77:

The book was most likely started on the island of Iona, although its name is derived from the Abbey of Kells, in the Irish Midlands, where it was kept from at least the 9th century to 1541. One theory is that portions of the book were made at Kells, after Viking raids on Iona forced the monastery to retreat to the more isolated location. Dsmdgold 10:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's extreme folly to start a debate on the origins of the Book of Kells here on this page, as there is no true consensus. It is of Hiberno-Saxon, and Insular script. The article (before my edits) suggested it was pictish. Per above, "original article" referred to Celtic art. BTW, why are you guys ganging up against me for clarifying an article, it's not what Wiki is about. Bit sinister? Bluegold 11:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "gang up" on you. As I stated above, I was uncertain which article you were refering to. However, as I read this article, before your edits, it did not say that Kells was Pictish. It said that it had Pictish influences, which is not the same thing. Art historians have seen Pictish influences in many of the insular illuminated manuscripts. They have also seen Mediterranean, Byzantine, Coptic, Merovingian, and other influences. The article on the Book of Kells does not discuss influences, other than other Insular manuscripts at all. Perhaps it should, but because of article length limits, I made the choice to not discuss them when I rewrote the article. I see nothing wrong with stating in this article that some Insular manuscripts, including Kells, have some Pictish influence. Dsmdgold 13:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It was the first comment by Stbalbach I had mostly in mind. I did a simple edit and agreed with Stbalbach that he re-edit. That was that. I also believe that I was correct to make those edits, and that you and Stbalbach are correct to demur if you so choose. This is what Wiki is all about. Bluegold 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)