This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
domnus
- Общая лексика
- ī m. Aug = dominus (II)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed some unreliable sources that had crept in. Please see this conversation: [1]. Lozleader ( talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Brythonek ( talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
domnus
- Общая лексика
- ī m. Aug = dominus (II)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed some unreliable sources that had crept in. Please see this conversation: [1]. Lozleader ( talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Brythonek ( talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)