Talk:Vindolanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vindolanda article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

[edit] Meaning of Name

Why is the Modern Irish version of this name listed? Is there a particular Irish connection with Vindolanda? QuartierLatin1968 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No special Irish connection but it is thought the name was derived from the local Celtic name. We could also add that the "Landa" part of the name may be associated with the welsh ""Llan" (Llandudno, LLangollen, etc). Vignaux 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes; the Welsh equivalent, if it existed, would be gwynlan. But does the name Fionnlann get any use in modern Goidelic languages (apart from being a name for Finland)? QuartierLatin1968 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the Irish word and replace it with the Welsh. I am not a Welsh speaker but I had also inferred the gwyn part. gwynlan is very close to Vindolanda isn't it? Vignaux 10:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. So is fionnlann, for that matter – at least, once you get accustomed to the kind of sound changes the Celtic languages have undergone! But then again, I'm used to thinking of words like brigantinos and Cunomaglos as being Celtic-looking even though they don't necessarily resemble modern Celtic languages. This is just a result of changes that have made these words, for example, into modern Welsh brenin and Cynfael.

On the other hand, I'm not sure whether a purely reconstructed Welsh (or Irish) version of Vindolanda, if it hasn't been in use either nowadays or in the past, would have much encyclopedic value here... QuartierLatin1968 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that we can infer the meaning of the name that the Romans (well Batavians and Tungrians) used 1900 years ago and that this is closely related to languages spoken now. I believe it is useful to give some indication of the meaning and the connection but I don't think the Irish version is appropriate. We should swap it for the welsh equivalent though we should not make a big thing of this. Vignaux 20:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Never knew this, and I'm fascinated to see it there, but should it really be right up in the first sentence? It makes the lead clumsy, and there's no reference mentioned for it. Telsa (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I have moved it to the end of the opening paragraph. See how that fits. Vignaux 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely reads a lot better that way. Telsa (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)