Talk:Cynetes

I removed this: "Some researchers, who claim they have decoded the Conii writing system, believe that these influenced the Romans in their writing and language." and this: "Apparently, before the arrival of the Romans, the Conii were monotheist. This people allied with the Romans, when these wanted to dominate the Iberian Peninsula. Apparently, the god of the Conii was Elohin, following a translation of a stone that can be found today in Évora Museum, but this name seems to be foreign to their language, and is quit possibly a loan from the Phoenicians-Carthaginians." Such discoveries would make news! It would be rash to judge the monotheism of a people whose writing has not been deciphered. --Wetman 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I moved this map here as it adds no information to the map already at the site, which illustrates the region of the Cynetes in Antiquity, a region that embraced both the Algarve of southern Portugal and the sw of southern Spain. Additionally, this map gives a misleading impression of Cynetes/Conii restricted to the south of Portugal. The border is medieval/modern and is irrelevant and confusing in a discussion of the Cynetes. I have enlarged the map at the article enough so that the city of Conistorga can just be made out. Someone's feelings are likely to be hurt, but have I explained my action pretty well? --Wetman 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wetman, what gives? The curent border between Portugal and Spain in that region is the Guadiana / Odiana river. It goes back to Provincial divisions in Roman times for that same border was the border between the Lusitania and Betis provinces. Supposedly, the Romans chose those borders because they found the region in question divided as such both geographically and ethnically. During Moorish times, whenever Taifa kingdoms formed (smaller localised states) the Guadiana river in this particular region was always the divide among the various small mountainous Kingdoms of Algarve and the great plain "Empires" rulled from Sevilla or Cadiz. If you knew anything about the region at hand you wouldn't make such retarded ignorant comments. Up to the North the Guadiana river is not a great border as it is a somewhat thin river easy to transverse amid the plains. But by the Algarve region of Portugal Mountains start to appear to the West of the river, which makes for a distinct divide. Especially when couplled with the thickening of the river, the pronounded valley and low population density in the border region were it not for recent (post 1960) tourist enterprises. Learn before you comment, please.

Many claim that the Coniis were celticized. But what does "to celticize" mean? Is it to make one look more like Celts in the cultural sense? the linguistic sense? the ethnic sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.182.112 (talk • contribs)

I believe that it means that they became culturaly and linguitically like the Celtici, and that they heavely mixed with them. The Ogre 15:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Varlaam changed the era of this page from BCE to BC justifying the change in the edit summery with "The Iberian Peninsula is in Europe". To Varlaam it seems that this argument is so strong that s/he marked the edit as minor. The idea that BCE is un-European is new to me. I am a member of the Institute of Classical Studies (London) and the library was relocated last year. The staff as part of the move relabeled the shelves as BCE. I'm sure that people can produce counter examples but the point is that BCE notation is used for this period of history and for European regions. For wikipedia to use both eras seems to me to be correct and reflects usage outside of wikipedia. Hence changing the era of this page seems to me to be unwarranted.Dejvid (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The convention BC/AD, though not my own personal choice, was introduced in this article as of 14:35, 10 November 2005, in the caption to an illustration. Rather than argue the merits in each case at Wikipedia, we just go with the flow: some articles use BC/AD others BCE/CE. I guess it depends on who got there first. --Wetman (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The current policy does not exclude changes in the era style of pages. It merely, by the requirement for consensus makes it difficult. Provided the policy is respected, this prevents edit wars. That change is still possible means that over time the era style will tend towards the usage in wider society. Changing pages back to the original form would if done in more than individual cases cause the kind of disruption that the current policy serves to prevent, IMO. You do seem to be right though that the first usage of era was in the form BC though in the link heading of and external link rather than an image caption.Dejvid (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cynetes. 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/20081006160601/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cynetes. 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/20110723195518/http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91450//Location/Oxbow to http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91450//Location/Oxbow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply