![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The assumption that the Irish Samhain and Gaulish Samon refer to the same period may be based on inaccurate information. There is extensive and detailed information to support this assertion at the following locations:
Samhain is not the 'Celtic new year'
Responses to 'The Celtic New Year'
I'll give this a couple of weeks, do some additional research, and then come back to consider an edit.
Lumin 00:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile I edited to state that there is disagreement, and why. -- Nantonos 12:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, November in Ireland was called Mi Gam (month of winter) and Cormac's Glossary (circa 900) also defines the word Gamain as 'encloses the month of Gamh (November)', so suggesting that Giamonios was the month of winter. While the Book of Leinster refers to the month of Cet Samain (cétamuin, i.e. May). So if Samonios is the month of May (Cet Samain) and Giamonios is the month of November (Mi Gam/Gamain), then the Coligny calendar starts at Beltaine; as does the year in old Irish law tracts on marraige. The same old Irish law tracts also define year in two halves for grazing fines: Samfucht (the summer months) and Gamfucht (the winter months); were again one would expert the period of Samfucht to start at Beltaine. 38.109.155.100 ( talk) 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about "celtic art". It's an unadorned table. "Art of timekeeping", if you like, but Celtic art seems more about the 'fine arts'. dab (ᛏ) 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article currently states:
and yet in Caesars Gallic Wars:
The interpretation of atenoux as "returning night" is improbable (Delamarre p.58) and "renewing" would seem more probable; thus the month would start at new moon and atenoux would indicate the renewal, ie the full moon. -- Nantonos 23:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Pliny (re: the Gauls,) and Tacitus (re: the Germans*) both tell us that, for their primary religious or civic cycles, the European tribes both favored the moon phase that is "after new but not having reached full": in other words the First Quarter (the sixth night the moon could possibly be seen). The various statements by modern writers suggesting that all lunar calendars ("must") have been calibrated from Full(or New Moon) do not often cite the reasons why they say so and we are left to assume that they assume-so because that is how things were done in the Hebrew and the Islamic calendars. Central Europe was and still is is a long way from the Middle East. Anyone who looks up at the actual moon might find that the dead-straight terminator on the "D"-shaped First-Quarter is far easier to judge to the day/by-eye precisely than the several days on either side of Full where, visually its absolute "fullness" is dramatically ambiguous. This is why I feel that if the ancient Europeans actually did use the First Quarter to calibrate their calendar it would not be difficult at all to build a compelling case for the "why" behind it.
Take the quote from Pliny in the article and compare this from Tacitus' Germania: "except in the case of accident or emergency, they assemble on certain particular days, either shortly after the new moon or shortly before the full moon. These they hold are the most auspicious times for embarking on any enterprise."
-- Earrach April 2nd, 2007
The article asserts that the mean month in the 30-year cycle is 29.534 days. This is consistent with a 30-year cycle of 10957 days and a mean year of about 365.237 days. I see no justification of this assertion in the article or in the linking web pages.
A 30-year cycle of 10956 days would provide a more accurate mean month of 29.531 days, but a less accurate mean year (365.2 days). The mean year could then be corrected by ADDING an extra month about once every 600 years. The 30-year cycle of 10956 days can be implemented by simply adding a leap day to each 5-year cycle, where years otherwise have 354 days and excluding leap months, which have 30 days.
I don't know how many days did actually occur in a 30-year cycle or whether this is known at all. Any assertion to the effect needs backing up.
-- Karl Palmen 31 August 2005 10:40 UT
Here are the mean years and mean lunar months for different numbers of days in the 30-year cycle (of 371 lunar months)
Number of Days Mean Year Mean Month 10955 365.1667 29.529302 10956 365.2 29.530997 10957 365.2333 29.533693
The web pages referenced by the article do not agree on the number of days in the Coligny calendar's 30-year cycle. Any assertion concerning the number of days actually occurring in the 30-year cycle needs backing up with a credible reference.
Karl Palmen 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that this comes from the neopagan The Celtic Tradition by Caitlin Matthews, which is the only source cited by [2] which, in turn, is I suspect the source of some of this article. I would like to see some better documentation for these "sigils" which are not mentioned in the academic books on the subject. -- Nantonos 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The article currently gives the impression that Monard was the originator of much of the information presented. Since his works date to 1996-1999 and the scholarship on the Calendar dates to 1899, this is unlikely. -- Nantonos 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm just doing some amateur research on ancient Celtic calendars, and I was wondering what the "Celtic Moon" column means in the "List of Months". There's no citation, no explanation of the column in the article, and I can't find any relevant information on those phrases when I search through this site or on Google. There's also some other information in the notes which confuses me. What do the information on stars, festivals and Samothrace have to do with the calendar? Were they listed on the tablets? 71.13.147.17 ( talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I am undoubtedly grateful that the list of months is in far better shape than it was when they were all changed to fit one book's source. I certainly agree with the month setup regarding the start and I welcome the return of Delamarre as a source. However, I'm wondering ought more of a range be employed for the Gregorian equivalent months? Example: Samonios = May-June, Dumanios = June-July, etc. As only having one month on that may lead people to possibly thinking that there is a clear Gregorian equivalent where there is not. I'm also skeptical of the use of Irish holiday names in the entries as there's no proof the Gauls knew those names. Perhaps their inclusion is unnecessary? Neððamos ( talk) 07:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently the row for Elembivios asks to compare with
It's very hard to tell what word is being described here. To start Celtic is not a language but a family of languages. My first guess would be that this refers to the Proro-Celtic word for deer, however the only such word I could find is *karwos which does not appear to be a cognate of Elembivios. If I extend my search to just any Celtic language, I find descendents of *karwos in the Brythonic Branch.
On the Goedelic branch I find descendants of *wēdus (wild)
None of these are compelling cognates with Elembivios either. So I am left completely in the dark as to what this bit is intended to convey. It should be clarified or removed.
AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I’m hoping to fix up this page, as it’s in such a dire state. It needs careful clear writing, a good structure, and claims with some foundation. I am a new editor, so would be grateful for any help or advice. Macfeegles ( talk) 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if we added a new section to give a brief description of each notation in turn and how it works. This is a general source of confusion for people looking at the calendar. I have tried to add a bit more under the 'sample month', but it's not really enough to explain things clearly as it stands. But, the question I want to float here is whether that is too detailed for the WP article? Macfeegles ( talk) 04:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)