Talk:Celtic knot

Should we mention...

That Breaking Benjamin's logo is a variation of the Celtic knot?

They

Yes, but what are they? -Branddobbe 01:14, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

8 Types

how are the 8 types of knots broken down and what is the significance of each ?

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefscelticknots.htm This article claims that the true meanings of the knots have been lost, but that archeologists have made guesses as to the meanings of some based on the overall shape of some knots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.95.29.212 (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiccan

Wiccans, at least real Wiccans, do not make up meanings or assign Celtic Knots magical properties. Because Wicca originates in Ireland (Dating back before Christ in ancient Ireland, not in the 1960's as stated on your Wiccan page, although that was a revival period for some) Celtic Knots are often worn by Wiccans. It often has more to do with their own inherited ethnic culture rather than a spiritual interest.

~Colleen

Modern Wicca is closer to Aleister Crowley's work than anything "pre-Christian Irish".  RasputinAXP  c 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wicca is actually closer to Crowley's work, though Crowley can't be referenced as though he's the main influence (they're both merely part of the same boiling pot of ideas).

Wicca dates from the middle of last century. Even if the ideas were ancient in origin (though most seem to be relatively modern) the religion, as it stands, is modern in origin. Even then, it wasn't even called Wicca originally, rather the term denoted a follower of the religion (spelt 'Wica'). The word Wicca was applied to the religion much later (probably 70's or 80's).

This doesn't, in any way, invalidate Wicca as a religion, but it does call into question the knowledge of the Wiccans who claim this lineage. The Wicca article presents a pretty balanced and rational history, that most of the 'experienced' (for want of a better word) Wiccans I know will also attest.--Jcvamp 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

locations/times

Perhaps there could be some info on the eras and locations that such art was used? Including (later?) usage on stuff like stones and crosses. I've seen a few (old) stones and crosses with celtic knots on ( i live in cornwall), I think I remember somone saying that (in britain rather than the original celts) there were a few major waves of celtic cross building... not including the present war memorials & stuff! Perhaps mentioning how late/early or not it was used in various forms?

Under and over

Any closed loop - or any number of closed loops - drawn on a flat surface, no matter how many times they cross themselves and each other, can always be drawn so that each line goes under/over/under (etc) the lines that it crosses. Equivalently, the areas between the lines can always be coulored in with a black and white chequerboard effect.

Yup. Actually, I came here to suggest that perhaps an interesting addition to the article would be a discussion of how/why celtic knots "work"... a closed loop can always be done as an over-under-over-under thing. I've seen this addressed elsewhere. Very interesting. PurpleChez (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Norse Origin

I have been attempting to track down the needed citation that knotwork styles are Norse in origin. I have not been able to find such a reference, directly, but I have found several citations that seem to contradict this claim. I thought I would run my findings through the discussion page before editing the article.

In Celtic Art, George Bain demonstrates several styles related to knotwork. These come from Egypt, Greece, Persia, Turkey, Africa, and China, but none are from Scandinavia. And later, he reproduces a knot that he identifies as "The order of the 'So-called Viking Ornament' from Lewis, erroneously described as such in The Royal Commission of Ancient Monuments...It is a Pictish Ornament (Viking Loot)"

This seems to imply that Lewis describe at least one knotwork pattern as Viking in origin, but Bain suggests that the artifact actually flowed the other way. I don't have a reference to Lewis' work.

In Celtic Art In Christian and Pagan Times, J. Romilly Allen states that knotwork evolved from the simpler plaitwork form in Italy:

It would appear, then, that the transition from plaitwork to knotwork took place between the Lombard conquest of Italy under Alboin in A.D. 563, and the extinction of the Lombard monarchy by Charlemange in A.D. 774.

And Sir Edward Sullivan agrees with the place if not the date of origin in The Book Of Kells Described by Sir Edward Sullivan:

The immediate origin of this universally characteristic feature of Celtic illumination is in all probability to be found in decorative remains of North Italy and Southern Gaul dating from the second and third centuries. It did not become widely popular in Irish Art until the seventh century.

However, none of these references positively describes the route by which knotwork came to Ireland. Sullivan's date of the 7th century seems to predate the Viking raids on Ireland. The earliest date for those raids that I can find is the 8th century. My conclusion is that knotwork arose in Italy and spread to Ireland, and from there to Scandinavia. Unfortunately, I can not find a citation that explicitly states this.

Based on these references, my inclination is to strike the current paragraph claiming Norse origin and replace it with the following:

Examples of plaitwork (a woven, unbroken cord design) predate knotwork designs in several cultures around the world (Bain), but the broken and reconnected plaitwork that is characteristic of true knotwork begain in Northern Italy and Southern Gaul and spread to Ireland by the 7th century (Sullivan).

Does this seem reasonable?

Drewivan 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems quite reasonable to me. I wish I had more of my books available, but I don't. So I can't help right now with tracking down references. But I'm certainly more comfortable with your paragraph than the claim of Norse origin.  Sean Lotz  talk  05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times by J. Romilly Allen has the following to say:

p248 (in my edition): "It has been suggested that Irish interlaced-work was derived from the rude interlaced patterns on the Saxon and Merovingian buckles, but this appears to me most unlikely."

p249: The Anglo-Saxons did not derive their art from the Vikings

So the Vikings didn't influence the Anglo-Saxons, and the Anglo-Saxons did not influence the Irish, but he doesn't explicitly say the Vikings did not influence the Irish. He does theorize ("with the greatest diffidence") that zoomorphic patterns may have flowed from Scandanavia to Ireland in the 9th and 10th centuries in areas where a Viking presence was most heavily felt. Later (p. 252), Allen says that one of the Scandanavian characteristics of the sculptured monunents (in areas conquered by Vikings) is "the bands of interlaced-work have a tendence to bifurcate and break off into scroll-like terminations" -- meaning that at least some forms of interlacing were influenced by Vikings.

My conclusion is that what we normally think of as celtic knots made it to Ireland prior to contact with the Vikings, however, certain Scandanavian influences may have been incorporated later, namely zoomorphics and modified styles of interlacing.

Part of the problem is that celtic knotwork is an art form that was prominent for several centuries (and indeed continues to enjoy popularity into the present). Certainly there have been many, many variations and external influences. An interesting addition to this article would be a section tracing these influences over time.

Drewivan 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The 7th century Sutton Hoo find appears very similar to the Scandinavian Vendel culture and a similar atrticact has been found on the Isle of Wight. This would suggest Scandinavian or Germanic origins, generally earlier than the Celtic examples. The Urnes style of Viking decoration would also seem close to Celtic design.

The essence of the knotwork form is that it is endless and seamless. This has been linked to an expression of monotheism not polytheism. :::For the alleged earlier origins in this article we need some firm references.

The actual execution of knotwork forms is extremely complex and was effectively lost until rediscovered by George Bain post War :::--Streona (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Norse knotwork

Shouldn't this article simply be a part of a larger article entitled "knotwork?" It seems to me that this article hardly touches on the extensive usage of knotwork by the nearby Scandinavian tribes that have deeply influenced the UK since they began invading the area, including Ireland.

What's with the total lack of information regarding the huge amount of knotwork the Norse have used - including the so-called "Celtic Spirals" that appear on Scandinavian art from the period?

I get the impression that the English-speaking world's impression on "knotwork" largely has to do with the Book of Kells, which was obviously a later development, though spared the flame from an "enlightened" new society for obvious reasons.

This article also goes so far out as to assume that knotwork came from Egypt of all places, without even bothering to examine the extensive use by the northernly Germanic tribes right next to the isles that had so deeply influenced not only the ethnic make up but also cultural make up of these areas. :bloodofox: 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right, it would be good to expand this article, or link it to other articles on knotwork. In addition to the Scandinavian knotwork tradition that you mention, there are interesting developments in Islamic art, Armenia, Ethiopia, and (surely)others. (According to James Trilling in his book The Language of Ornament, all of these spread and developed from a Roman source, about two thousand yeas ago.) Of course, for the expanded article, or articles, someone will have to do the work. Kwork 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Link conflict

I just edited a new link, which appears to be commercial so that its description was neutral and stuck it at the bottom of the link list, where I believe new links are meant (policy, no?)to be added. After doing so, I notice that there has been a bit of to-and-fro over this link in the past. Given the extensive resources proferred by some of the other links on this page, is there a case for the inclusion of this link at all - it appears to be an attempt to gain customers? It has been a couple of years since I last edited Wikipedia, so apologies if this is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.95.29.212 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What has happened to this article?

Seriously, I think wiki will cease to exist in a couple of years, when people realise how biased and untrustworthy it is. It's a pity, because many of the hard science articles are really very good.

The fact that this knot design is now called unambitiously as Celtic is just crap. The exact pattern, (what happened to the old and more specific example?, in this article any interwoven lattice work is a Celtic knot.) is definitely Germanic, if we talk about what is usually considered as A celtic knot. Not a bunch of interwoven lattices, but A knot "A". Singular.

This is part of "WikiProject Celts" which shows just how absurdly biased it is, also in the selection of new age books as "sources".

Thank god there are other true sources not related to Wikipeadia.

How can this design possibly be Celtic if it originates within the Anglo-Saxon ruled age, and the pre Anglo-Saxon art was totally different? If anything, it's either an Angle or a Saxon design. Interwoven Lattice designs are found everywhere, but the specific design normally called as a "Celtic knot" design is the same as the Germanic triangular design, it's not like the Roman design. It's clearly a Germanic Triquetra or Valknut, nothing Christian or Celtic at all. Maybe there were not enough sources, but a lot of info has just been completely erased. The examples are pretty ambiguous, which makes it possible to infer that there's a Roman connection here, or indeed, an insular isolate, even though similar designs are present all over northern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.55.197 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- some scholars think that it originally grew out of influences from people who were neither Germanic nor Celtic (such as Scythians). "Animal style" interlace was something of an international trend, not confined to Celts, but many people think that abstract knotwork interlace reached its peak of perfection in medieval Ireland, and the Celts kept the tradition when it was receding elsewhere, so it's not simply a mistake that it's often associated with Celts in the popular mind... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2011

2019

Bollocks. It's Germanic, and the fact that it is, and the fact that the quite correct assumption that it is was met with the sneering reply of 'whatever' only proves this page is nothing more than a page dedicated to lying romantic Celtic claptrap. -- 20:48, 11 September 2019‎ 146.199.159.246

Sorry, dude, but Anglo-Saxons elaborated their own version of "Animal style" interlace (which had spread among peoples of a number of different ethnic/linguistic affiliations). They did not bring pure abstract knotwork to its highest stage of complexity and artistic technique -- the Irish did that. If you want to influence this article, then you need to bring forth reputable sources, instead of making flat unsupported assertions which may contain a certain kernel of truth, but which are obviously false in the oversimplified and dogmatic form in which you state them... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Celtic knot → Knotwork – Most of the content is about knotwork designs of non-Celtic origin. —Ashley Y 20:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. French Fries aren't actually French, the Norway rat is from China, etc. Usage is what matters, not actual origin. SnowFire (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• See discussion in previous section above. Various forms of interlace have occurred in numerous cultures around the globe, but the Celts arguably brought pure abstract knotwork to its peak of artistic perfection, and ran with it the longest... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Nom's claim about origin isn't backed up by anything, and the logic is wrongheaded. The fact that various cultures arrived at some of the same patterns doesn't mean the Celts stole them from someone else. Even if they had, SnowFire's analysis is correct. It's not WP's job to rewrite English language usage to prove a point (which in this case is bogus anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misleading caption

"Stone Celtic crosses, such as this, are a major source of knowledge regarding Celtic knot design." I'm no expert but the current picture, File:Bromptoncross.jpg, shows a bog-standard Victorian copy of a Celtic cross in Brompton Cemetery (founded 1840), which is not an authentic source. Either a picture of a genuine medieval Celtic cross should be used, or the caption changed. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The caption is nonsense. Graveyards in Ireland are full of crosses like this one, all dating from the last century. Before the development of the modern taste for lower-profile marble gravestones, they were the standard crosses for better-off burials (the poor did with a simple stone slab, timber cross or nothing). The pattern was just random decoration chosen by the headstone maker. Scartboy (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

White supremecist/racist symbol

They are also white supremecist symbols. Look at any white prison gang and they're tattooed in all kinds of this knotwork all over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Broken/Unbroken" Needs Clarification

   Examples of plait work (a woven, unbroken cord design) predate knotwork designs in several cultures around the world,[2] but the broken and reconnected plait work that is characteristic of true knotwork began in northern Italy and southern Gaul and spread to Ireland by the 7th century.[3]

What do broken and unbroken mean here? Celtic knots are commonly composed of knotted loops. If "broken" here is meant to refer to how intersections break the lines in the 2-D representation seen by the viewer, what would "woven, unbroken" mean? —Undomelin (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this answers my question, but the terminology isn't obvious to someone not already familiar with the subject. I suggest illustrations and explanations be excerpted from this out of copyright (1904) book, to clarify that a "break" refers to a plait mesh's "X" being turned into ")(" or "⩆":

Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times by John Romilly Allen. Methuen & Company, 1904. p.259

—Undomelin (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Another meaning?

Is there another meaning for a Celtic Knot other than art? Historygeek55590 (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)