|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Colin Reader should have been Dr. Colin Martin. The confusion may have been from his book a Reader in Scottish History.--Seàn B. 23:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I had always been led to believe that the Picts weree a race apart, and the Caledonians were the British ancestors of the Strathclyders. I know this is dealt with in the relevant section, but it's contentious and shouldn't be asserted in the introduction.
- I don't think that's contentious (although there's plenty of contentious stuff in the article). The lands of the Caledonii were, if we are to believe Ptolemy, in Perthshire, which would make the Caledonians Picts from the 3rd century. As for the kingdom of Strathclyde, that was in the region where Ptolemy placed the Damnonii. Angus McLellan 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I could see it being merged with an article on the Caledonii themselves. Currently we are using Caledonia to describe all of Scotland north of the Antonine Wall in many sources even though the Caledonii were one tribe amongst the Vacomagi, the Taexali and the Venicones all inhabiting the area. Many history books define Caledonia much more tightly and exclude these tribes, limiting Caledonia proper to the area around the Great Glen and a bit further southwards. I think we need to define how we are going to use Caledonia: in its poetic sense as a name for all Scotland, in the Roman historians' sense as a name for just northern Scotland or as the more precise sense as the land of the Caledonii. I will try to find out if anyone has any theories about which tribes made up the Confederacy. adamsan 14:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me the problem with getting 'precise' about Caledonia and the Caledonii is that precise defintions tend to be very speculative, different historians tending to have rather different defintions. Indeed defintion and counter-definition seems to be something of a minor creative industry. However, I have no problem with Caledonia and Caledonian Confederacy as items within an article called Caledonii. I believe Caledonia is quite derivative of Caledonii as used by Ptolemy. Laurel Bush 15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC).
- What should it be then folks? The recent new edits have consolidated tribe and confederacy together, is this the way to go? I would argue with the new assertion that the Caledonians forced the Romans to abandon Scotland, there are other, much-discussed, factors to consider, as outlined in the Roman Britain article I think. A few points about Caledonian political organisation seem to have been lost in the recent changes and I do sense that some passages no longer represent the known sources, eg the use of 'resistance' as a term in areas that were not officially occupied and where an uprising and southward invasion is better historically attested. adamsan 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that Google hits are not always an effective tool for deciding on an article topic. Caledonians can refer to a number of different modern organisations as Google clearly shows. The issue I feel about the Caledonian Confederacy was that it may be preferable to treat it separately, as a name given by historians to a losely defined group of tribes, whilst the Caledonii/Caledonians and the archaeological knowledge about their society could be better served under Caledonii. Thoughts
? adamsan 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Cherchen Man and Family
I am no expert on the Caledonians and archealogy in this era but should this be added in the article ? Apparently some mummies nicknamed "Cherchen Man and Family ... of the ancient Caledonii tribe of central Scotland, have been unearthed in a burial site thousands of miles east ... They were found in the Taklamakan desert in the western Chinese region of Xinjiang.". Further, "The male mummy had hair of reddish brown, high cheekbones, a long nose, full lips and a ginger beard; hardly Oriental in any way. He stood six feet tall and was buried wearing a red twill tunic and tartan leggings. Even his DNA indicates that he was indeed Celtic in origin.". -GabaG (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's a potentially confusing term. It would probably be best if we define it... fortunately we have an article which seeks to do that and provides commonly-accepted definitions:
|“||Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.||”|
|“||(a) they are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there;
(b) precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country's population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterised as indigenous; (c) they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own.
- The only factor that, to my mind, would prevent their categorisation as an indigenous people would be the question of whether they ever succumbed to a colonial condition. I doubt that the Roman incursions into Caledonia could ever be described as a "conquest". It wasn't until Pictish times that there were significant, recorded instances of conquest by a different culture (i.e. Northumbrian Anglo Saxons).
- As to the relationship of beaker culture and celtic culture, I think the jury's still out, but they are commonly regarded as proto-celtic and the ancestors of the celtic peoples who subsequently occupied the same territory. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Caledonians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028202945/http://www.historyscotland.com/aboutus.html to http://www.historyscotland.com/aboutus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.