Talk:Dumnonii

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dumnonii a Roman name?[edit]

I have put in the point about Dumnonii being a Roman name, because there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, but a lot of evidence to support it. Isca Dumnoniorum was the Roman name for the Legionary Garrison and later Civitas at what is now Exeter. There is almost no evidence of significant pre-Roman occupation of the site, though there probably was some settlement in the area. Likewise there is no evidence of any unified tribal kingdom pre-Roman, whereas there are significant differences in pre-Roman Iron Age hillforts and structures, with Dartmoor and Cornwall having significant differences to other areas, and those other areas having strong distinctions. If this is to be changed, some kind of evidence needs to be cited to support the change. The brythonic term for Exeter was Caer Uisk, nothing to do with 'dumnonii' or 'dumnoniorum'.

A further myth is that the Dumnonii provided no resistance to the Romans, this was supposed because the Exeter Garrison was not big enough for a full Legion, and there were 'no other significant sites', In fact, in Devon alone there are at least 15 known military sites inlcuding a vexillation fortress and two other forts on one site at North Tawton - see http://www.roman-britain.org/places/nemetostatio.htm - this concentration of sites, along with the 25 year Military occupation of the second legion Augustus at Exeter, rather give the lie to the myth of the Dumnonii offering no resistance.

--Trotboy 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Caer Uisk" is either modern or middle Welsh, not Brythonic, or at least not the Brythonic that was spoken in the Iron Age, and Uisk is obviously derived from the "Isca" part of "Isca Dumnoniorum", not the "Dumnoniorum" part. The Romans absolutely did not make up names for the people they conquered. They rendered the names those people had for themselves into Latin spelling, which in reality meant little more than changing the Brythonic -os masculine ending to the Latin -us masculine ending, and I have again removed your absurd statement. --Nicknack009 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have still failed to cite anything whatsoever to support your assumption. Unless you were alive in the Iron Age - then there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim, whereas there is plenty of Archeological evidence to support what I am saying. At the very least, if the Romans did Latinise an existing 'Celtic' Tribal name, then it was that of the Tribe in the area between the Axe and the River Exe, or solely the Exe valley area, since this was their first line of incursion into Devon - evidenced by the string of marching camps along the Eastern edge of the Exe Valley. Certainly it had nothing to do with the Cornish, or the people of Dartmoor or much or North, South and West Devon. 172.200.254.161 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dumno-" is not a Latin word form. I've searched the Latin dictionaries at Persus and the only words that come up containing the substring "dumn" are Dumnorix, a Gaulish individual, and Geidumni, a Gaulish population group (the related substring "dubn" turns up nothing). It's Celtic. It exists in attested personal names like Togodumnus, Cogidubnus and Dumnovellaunus. I've seen it interpreted as meaning either "deep" or "world". The "-on-" infix is also well known in Celtic languages, appearing in personal, group and deity names to turn a noun or adjective into a proper name - for example, *mapos, son; Maponos, "the" son. "Dumnonii" is empatically not Latin.
The west wasn't politically centralised, it's true, but "Dumnonii" may have been an ethnic name which applied to lots of small political units. By analogy, there were many English kingdoms in the early middle ages, but they all self-identified as "English". Equally, there may have been lots of local chiefdoms which all self-identified as Dumnonii. Alternatively, the Dumnonii may have been a suzereign tribe over a federation of a number of smaller local groups, and thus their name could reasonably be applied beyond the Exe valley area. --Nicknack009 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Latin-Russian dictionary gives a variant instead: domno —

domnus

Общая лексика
ī m. Aug = dominus (II)
I suggest, for further discussion, we move here. ? Josh, linguist (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mention of a devon flag really anything to do with this, bbc devon which invented the flag seems to deny this,and though others are using it when talking about ancient brythonic devon/southwest its orignal idea was a rouce of pride and tourism rather than a recognition of any sort of celtic tribe! This would be surely if a dumnonnian flag was invented surely? 131.111.8.104 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) wpm[reply]

Stannary parliments? Is this relavent? I thought that the stannary parliments were created just to help the tin industry in these tin rich areas. I know the cornish one was granted additional rights afterwards that could be considered a recognition of legal rights etc. but thats cornwall not dumnonia. I don't know what the situation was for the devon stannaries But I'm farily sure both were originaly just in charge of an industry.

I think this was more a recognition of there being lots of tin rather than of dumnonia. I may edit or remove it.

131.111.8.97

Citation demanded[edit]

User:Setanta747 has restored a demand for a citation. I've tried to explain this to the editor very simply, so that the editor who demands a citation will understand it. In the following sentence, no claim is being made: Another tribe with a similar name but with no known links were the Fir Domnann in the province of Connacht. What would a citation consist of? Now, if a connection were being asserted, then you'd need to know why, and a citation would support the claim. Do you see how that works? Is the issue whether the Fir Domnann existed? Or whether they were in Connaught? Am I missing something? Is it that Fir Domnann mustn't be mentioned? I note that User:Setanta747 has never contributed a single edit to this article. --Wetman 14:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there are several hundred thousand articles that I have never contributed a single edit to. What's your point?
Since you seem to be taking a soapbox style, I'll follow your lead...
User:Wetman edited this article after I had inserted a citation template, and removed the template. As the edit made by the editor didn't satisfy my original rationale for the citation request, I replaced the citation tag. The editor communicated with me quite abrasively on my talk page and I duly offered an explaination, which the editor still appears confused about. Perhaps somebody else could attempt to explain it to him "very simply", so that he will understand it. --Mal 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Readers will note that there was no "rationale" for demanding a citation for the plain statement Another tribe with a similar name but with no known links were the Fir Domnann in the province of Connacht. The statement colorlessly directs the reader's attention. Wikipedia is just a readers' service, not an arena for poses. The well-named "Mal" was a furtive pseudonym of User:Setanta747, a practice that offers phantom support but never instills confidence) --Wetman (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic tribe[edit]

While I can accept the Dumnonii as a Celtic tribe we are relying on the administration of the Roman province of Britain as our source. In a number of cases the Romans divided or combined local tribes into their administrative civitates. So, referring to the discussion at the top of this talk page, maybe there is some value in pointing out that we don't know of the Dumnonii as a tribe in the ethnological sense prior to Roman occupation, but do know them as a tribe in the (original) sense of a division, and in this case possibly one imposed from above. Anyway, just a thought. Also I've added a big chunk about William Camden. I am recycling other people's work here, but I found it useful, especially in understanding the 'deep valley dweller' thing, and I have indicated Camden as the source of this because I can think of no one older who would have had a knowledge of Celtic languages (simultaneously removing the citation request, which I hope is OK - I think this pretty much covers that particular interpretation of the name). Personally I regard 'deep valley dweller' as an example of folk etymology, seeing as Camden himself regards 'Danmonii' as more proper, somewhat reducing the similarity to Duff-neint, and if anything undermining his own assertion. So I've added the 'people of the land' thing as an alternative, seeing as that was the name of an exhibition of Iron and Bronze Age artifacts in Plymouth Museum when I was a kid, and a more likely explanation of the name in my personal opinion. Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disinfobox[edit]

If no rulers are known, that line could usefully be omitted from the infobox, if it were more flexibly constructed (not usually a priority). Can anyone effect this deletion?--Wetman (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Large amounts of material are being added to this article by User:Brythonek. It appears to lack verifiable references, and/or to be original research - contrary to WP:V and WP:OR. Unless other editors agree that it should be included, I propose that it be deleted. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles on Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia, with which this article is now made to compete. The assertion of continuity that the new text espouses is a localist ludibrium of "Cornish sovereignty". Deleting, though, isn't editing. Perhaps our energies might be spent in supporting or adjusting statements with further citations and distributing it in the other articles. A statement like "Later history of the region may be found at Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia" would guide the reader. The blocks of new text could use some cleanup, wherever they go, certainly. --Wetman (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1. I have added more sources and references. Point 2. The tribal history of at least some Celtic tribes overlaps with the Dark Age kingdoms that emerged. As for Cornish sovereignty? What makes you say that this is a localst farce? These are the facts as best recorded in, albeit obscure and often unreliable, sources- yet they are the only sources we have. I am working on the red links, mostly due to Welsh spellings and variants not being picked up, but as you can see there are enough blue links to carry the subject into other areas.

I take it when people ask whether something be verifiable they actually bother to look for the information too and check, as I have been attempting to do in order to improve an article on subject in which I am interested and that was also a rather poor/scanty article to begin with. Brythonek (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are "obscure" and/or "unreliable", they should not be used on Wikipedia. This is fundamental - references need to be both verifiable - that is, they can be checked by readers - and reliable - that is, in particular, peer-reviewed in academic journals rather than being fringe theories or only available in self-published documents or websites. This policy - WP:V - applies generally, but is particularly relevant in a subject area like this where there is (in many senses) a lot of myth-making. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references and references where the information I have added may be found and verified. I have also done my best to tidy up the article, remove the typos and clear up as many of the red links as possible, although some inevitably remain. Brythonek (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I removed some unreliable sources that had crept in. Please see this conversation:[1]. Lozleader (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining problem - because many of the individual statements are unsourced - is that it is unclear how much of the information in this article now derives from reliable sources, and how much stems from the deleted unreliable references. This needs further work from an expert using reliable historic sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was badly sourced and badly edited to begin with. I haven't been working on this one recently but have new material and new sources in order to improve it.
  • On Dark Age sources- the sources in the various Annals and Chronicles of the Dark Age period are used by all historians discussing pertinent subjects. It is accepted that these sources should be questioned but in view of the fact that they are often the ONLY written sources we have then we have to make do with what we've got. Brythonek (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on sourcing, expanding in some cases, the personae in the Dark Age history part of the article- see this source too [2]. I understand why some may have considered deleting sources but perhaps it would have been better to at least paste them here and look into it together. There are now whole chunks of texts without sources at all, not desirable. Please see Dumnonii on my talk page- comments and suggestions welcome! :)

Brythonek (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems really hard to find any reliable sources... had a look in JSTOR which has good academic content, but all i could find was a review of a book that might be helpful: The Kingdom of Dumnonia: Studies in History and Tradition in South-Western Briatin AD 350-1150 by Susan m Pearce, Lodenek Press, Padstow, 1978 ISBN 0902899686. I see one of these reviews is referenced as no &) in the article. Somebody ought to dig up the book... one review states that she makes "no attempt to write the history of the British Kings, and a section on the surviving king-lists explains why this would be fruitless." And yet here we are trying to do just that!
The problem with all these web "sources" is they don't state their own sources... This new source is a series of potted biographies by one David Nash Ford. Apparently he has a primary degree from Reading, but doesn't seem to have anything published in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway here at random is:
Tutwal, King of Dumnonia (born c.375)
(Welsh-Tudwal, Latin-Theodowalaunus, English-Tudwold)
He succeeded his father, Guoremor. He appears to have married the Emperor Magnus Maximus' youngest daughter, Gratianna. He died about 425.
Says who? Not one reference... Now if someone could find us these king-lists and chronicles, even if they are mainly folklore it would be a start! Lozleader (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion about David Nash Ford's Early British Kingdoms website here - it convinced me that anything with his name on it needs to be treated with great caution. But he seems to be cited in no less than 567 separate articles - these ones - so it would take quite a bit of work to weed them out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumnonian edits 24.06.09[edit]

Right, I have spent the whole evening put references to the King List on the page. The main source in English is http://www.britannia.com/ However I have checked the latter's sources for the period in question and principally we have all the texts and traditional sources we would expect:-

The problem with sourcing here is that many of these manuscripts are in Old Welsh or Latin. Such as the following, some of whose names are pertinent to this article. When dealing with this period of history in Britain we have to accept the difficulty in sorting legend from fact or when legend and fact awkwardly ovrlap! For this reason I have avoided Arthurian references, other than one speculative link to Uther Pendragon in which it is also stated that this is a legendary link.

  • Urien son of Cynfarch son of Merchion son of Gorwst Lledlum son of Ceneu son of Coel.
  • Llywarch Hen son of Elidyr Lydanwyn son of Meirchawn son of Gorust Ledlwm son of Keneu son of Coel. Llywarch was not only a chieftan, but is credited with several poems in both the Red Book of Hergest and the Black Book of Carmarthen.
  • Clydno Eidin & Chynan Genhir & Chynuelyn Drwsgyl, Cynfawr Hadgadduc & Chatrawd Calchuynyd, are the sons of Cynnwyd Cynnwydyon son of Cynfelyn son of Arthwys son of Mar son of Keneu son of Coel.
  • Dunawd & Cherwyd & Sawyl High-head are the sons of Pabo the Pillar of Britain son of Arthwys son of Mar son of Keneu son of Coel.
  • Gwrgi & Peredur are the sons of Eliffer of the Great Retinue son of Arthwys son of Mar son of Keneu son of Coel.
  • Gwendoleu & Nudd & Chof the sons of Ceidyaw son of Arthwys. Gwendoleu was the pagan king defeated by Maelgwn Gwynedd, Rhydderch Hael, Aedan macGabhran and Peredur at the Battle of Arthuret.
  • Trychan cledyf Kynuerchyn a thrychan ysgwyt Kyrtnwdyon a thrycha wayw Coeling; pa neges bynhac yd elynt iddi yn duun, nyt amethei hon honno-.
  • Rydderch Hael son of Tudwal Tudelyd son of Kedic son of Dyuynwal Hen.
  • Mordaf son of Seruan son of Kedic son of Dyfynwal Hen.
  • Elffin son of Gwyddno son of Cawrdaf son of Garmonyawn son of Dyfynwal Hen.
  • Gabhran son of Aedan Uradawc son of Dyuynwal Hen son of Idnyued son of Warlord Maxen..
  • Elidyr Mwynuawr son of Gorust Priodawr son of Dyfynwal Hen
  • Huallu son of Tudfwlch Corneu, prince of Cornwall, & Dywanw daughter of Amlawdd Wledic.

Well, that is about all I can do for one evening. I am working on bringing as many differing sources as possible, as soon as possible- So please do not delete any more links. All this informaation, as well as the links and sources are to be found on my talk page. Brythonek (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing this from my watchlist. Someone else will have to bring this into line with reality.--Wetman (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the library to get me The Kingdom of Dumnonia: Studies in History and Tradition in South-Western Briatin AD 350-1150 by Susan m Pearce -- whether they can or not, and if they can, when, I have no idea. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this on the Dumnonia page?[edit]

Reality or otherwise, why isn't all this stuff in its proper place? - we've had a merger proposal, and in general there was a consensus that we kept Dumnonii and Dumnonia separate. Stuff about kings of Dumnonia should surely be on the Dumnonia page for a start. Maybe then people with Dumnonia on their watchlist will at least see this stuff. It's as if the other article has been ignored. I have sympathy with the continuity view, but I'm among those opposed to merger. On the reality issue, wikipedia does have standards of reliability, and unless the material is explicit that so and so was king of Dumnonia according to so and so in this book, and preferably this page or section, it isn't reliable. Interested and accepting as I am of a lot of the internet-based stuff, it doesn't hit me as academic - and just giving a list of sources and saying that is where the material comes from isn't specific enough. A lot of those links don't even have a source in situ. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input[edit]

There's an old proposal (October 2008) to merge the articles on Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia. There's not been much input so if anyone interested of with knowledge of the period could chip in at Talk:Dumnonia#Merger proposal - Kingdom of Dumnonia that'd be great. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Susan Pearce has to say about the king list[edit]

"The Cornish Elements in the Arthurian Tradition" Susan M. Pearce Folklore, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 145-163

"of the idea that Arthur's exploits should have Cornish connections. It is necessary now to turn to the whole problem of the Dumnonian king-list, and Arthur's connection with it. I have suggested elsewhere (20) that the literary sources relating to this king-list give reason to suppose that the earliest names on the list were figures of South, probably South-East, Welsh connection, rather than South-West British, and equally that it was in South-East Wales that most interest was shown in cherishing and developing the traditions of the figures named on the list and of their associations. The Dumnonian pedigree is preserved in connection with the genealogy of Glamorgan in a part of MS Jesus College 20 which certainly relies on South-East Welsh tradition. Three early, probably historical, figures on the Dumnonian line, Eudaf, Cynan, and Adeon, appear in tradition only in Welsh contexts, and the last two, since they are intimately connected with the Breton migrations, are most likely to stem from southern Wales, like all the other colonists' leaders." Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Word: origins, pronunciation & etymology[edit]

Hawww.. With all those "roots" of "Dam-"-"Dom-"-"Dum-" I've fallen out of understanding how we to pronounce the word: with /ʌ/ or /ʊ/? What was the main Latin root for Dumnonia/Dumnonii? Josh, linguist (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening your comments by scoffing1 is not a good start, and assuming there is a Latin root for a Latinised Celtic name is just silly.2 You may as well ask for the Spanish root of Tenochtitlan. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not a second — I had only been in search for pronunciation.
2. Sorry. Maybe I was ambiguous and not exact. I meant the derivation "stem" rather than root. And anyway — as soon as a word was modified by Romans and used by Romans — in such exact a case we should search for the "pronunciation root" among Romans. I am neither silly nor surface, bro. Josh, linguist (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dumnonii. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dumnonii&oldid=1204954052"