Talk:Cynllibiwg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article contains no valid references, and several statements that are uninformed and incorrect. I have put in a few fact-tags, and the tagged statements will be deleted if they remain unreferenced. . . .LinguisticDemographer 20:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am aware there is no evidence that Cynllibiwg was a kingdom and I've never heard it referred to as such. It is also wrong to describe it as corresponding to Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, which was a much wider geographical area (but never a kingdom in itself). As LinguisticDemographer notes, all this is unsourced. Fact-tags could readily be multiplied. Whence all these facts? I think only a decent academic printed source should be accepted and the article revised drastically. Enaidmawr 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- From the website referenced here : "A study of Wales in the twelfth century soon shows that there were four competing Welsh 'kingdoms' striving for dominance in this isolated, mountainous and generally poor region, viz Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys and Cynllibiwg." Funny no scholars of medieval Welsh history mention it. But hold on, the reason is that it "was only recently rediscovered" (presumably by the author of the website). Enaidmawr 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested to get any info there is on Cynllibiwg other than the reference in Nennius, who wrote in the ninth century (not the sixth as stated here) and who doesn't say what it was or where it was, merely referring to it as the location of one of the "wonders of Wales". If there is no other reference to it, then this article probably needs deletion. . . .LinguisticDemographer 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Almost every sentence in this article could be prefaced with "According to P. M. Remfrew" and concluded with "however this is not accepted by other historians of early and medieval Wales." Where is the proof that any reputable scholar other than the author of the website given here (and placed here by the website owner, it would appear) and the book referenced at Rhwng Gwy a Hafren (ditto) supports this theory? This should be merged with Rhwng Gwy a Hafren and critically edited to sort fact from theory. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Tagged as Original research as per wikipedia policy: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". Enaidmawr (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're being a bit dismissive of Remfry, he has published about Cynllibiwg in reliable journals eg British Archaeology and the Transactions of the Radnorshire Society. He is also not the "re-discoverer" of Cynllibiwg as that is Bruce Coplestone-Crow. The citing of Calcebuef from Doomsday is a bit of a jump of faith but Kenthlebiac from the Red Book of the Exchequer is pretty convincing as references from the 11C after Nennius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Enaidmawr - On the Rhwng Gwy ac Hafren page you say that Remfry's viewpoint has been rejected by Welsh historians, I'd be interested in any references you have to specific repudiations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- See my comment on Talk:Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Paul Remfry is undoubtedly an expert on the castles of Wales. Another article cites his M. Phil. thesis, on a related subject to this article. Technically, this may be WP:OR, but it is the research of a reliable historian. It thus desrves respect. If there are articles, as some one states, can they be cited? If others disagree with this interpretation, can their writings be cited? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've proposed merging this into Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Paul Remfry is undoubtedly an expert on the castles of Wales. Another article cites his M. Phil. thesis, on a related subject to this article. Technically, this may be WP:OR, but it is the research of a reliable historian. It thus desrves respect. If there are articles, as some one states, can they be cited? If others disagree with this interpretation, can their writings be cited? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge results
I have expanded the cut down article slightly. Contrary to the narrative that I put it was not restoring deleted text. If the middle 'c' in Calcebuef was aspirated, 'lc' could represent a Welsh 'll', so that the name is not as remote as it might appear.
The question is of status and extent. David Hill ('Mercians:The dwellers on the boundary' in M.P. Brown and C.A. Farr, Mercia, an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Europe (leicester University Press 2001), 174 plots Cynllibiwg on a map of Wales captioned, 'Regions named by 1100'. However he has used a different typeface from that used for kingdoms, probably suggesting he considered it to be a commote. Arwystli, Builth, and Cedweli have the same typography. Associated maps show the area as part of Powys in the 8th century, but not under Rhodri Mawr. My own suggestion, based on Early Welsh genealogical tracts is that Arwystli, Cedewain, and Gwrtheyrnion had their own dynasties from about the 9th century and should therefore be regarded as having some independence, though no doubt dominated by one or other of their neighbours. In this context, English hegemony (indicated by kings attending the English court) should not be ruled out. I appreciate that such views are antipathetic to Welsh national sentiments, but they have no place in objective history. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You raise some valid points. I'm here late in the day so I'll be brief.
- The name. I'm happy with Nennius but am not at all convinced by the Calcebuef of the Domesday Book, on purely linguistic grounds. If the 'c' is aspirated that gives Calchebuef which suggests Calch ('lime[stone]') as the first element (I'll pass on the second!). A source for the Red Book of the Exchequer name Kenthlebiac would be useful (unlike Nennius, not many of us have it on our shelves!). And even if the later references are genuine, unless they refer to it as a "kingdom" the "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" theory is not advanced one bit. I've read Remfry's website article and he avoids that difficulty. Nennius refers to it as a regione, a word which can be interpreted a number of ways.
- Extent and staus. Brief answer: we simply don't know. Like Wendy Davies, Brown and Carr, noted by you, follow the standard practice of referring to it as "a region named by 1100" (based on Nennius). As for the local dynasty argument, Wales was a patchwork of local dynasties/lordships. Some had a degree of independence, others were pretty much integrated in the larger kingdoms or tied to them (Arwystli was such in relation to Powys but also had ties with Gwynedd). If you take the "local dynasty" line too far you'll find that practically all the cantrefs of Gwynedd proper could be decribed as being ruled by local dynasties - lordship was hereditary, of course. As for fealty of individual lordships, that tends to be a matter of real politik. The local lords of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren had to survive under the very noses of the Marcher Lords, for instance, but certainly showed their mettle in the reign of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. But as I said, it's getting on a bit, so I'll leave it there. I'm afraid I remain totally unconvinced by the medieval kingdom of Cynllibiwg hypothesis, as you've probably noticed! Enaidmawr (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remfry's case is built on slender (rather than non-existent) foundations. See also British Archaeology 1998 and Hull University site - I cannot get into the original webpage. It certainly existed, but it is unclear what it was, which is why I used the word "polity" in the article on Elystan Glodrydd. The Red Book may be available on line at ancestry.com, but I cannot get inot the text, not having a subscription. It was publihsed in 1896 ed. H. Hall in the series Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores ; 99. I will try to look this up. The Hull website identified Calcebuef as mentioned in (or perhaps after) the Archenfield section section of the Herefordshire Domesday Book, and says that Coplestone-Crow made the identification; I think this refers to a book on Herefordshire place-names. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first article is clearly the basis for the first draft of the Cynllibiwg article here (verbatim in some places!). Remfry states: "Throughout the 12th century there were four principal competing Welsh `kingdoms' - and of these, one has only recently been recognised by modern research. The four were Gwynedd in the north and north-west, Deheubarth, arguably the most powerful of the four in the centre-west and south, Powys, lying roughly between Shrewsbury, Chester and Aberystwyth, and south of Powys, the newly-recognised Cynllibiwg, lying between Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth and the River Wye." Note: "and of these, one has only recently been recognised by modern research" and "the newly-recognised Cynllibiwg". Researched and recognised by who? Well, by Coplestone-Crow and Remfry, of course. Believe me, if Remfry's article had been accepted and published by a learned journal such as the Welsh History Review his argument would have been torn to shreds by the reviewer - assuming it would have been accepted in the first place. Their theory is based on the three sources already discussed above. As far as I know it is nowhere referred to as a kingdom - even Remfry won't say that as such (check the article). We can not refer to it as a "kingdom" or even a "polity" here on wikipedia, no matter what we may think of it, when it is clearly not accepted as such by mainstream historians. All we have is a place name: there are no 'foundations', just a great deal of imagination and determination to prove a hypothesis. Their argument, and that's all it is, is just not academically valid. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this ultimately depends on what the Red Book actually says, which neither of us have yet seen. The Hull university site (cited above) appears to have a quotation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first article is clearly the basis for the first draft of the Cynllibiwg article here (verbatim in some places!). Remfry states: "Throughout the 12th century there were four principal competing Welsh `kingdoms' - and of these, one has only recently been recognised by modern research. The four were Gwynedd in the north and north-west, Deheubarth, arguably the most powerful of the four in the centre-west and south, Powys, lying roughly between Shrewsbury, Chester and Aberystwyth, and south of Powys, the newly-recognised Cynllibiwg, lying between Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth and the River Wye." Note: "and of these, one has only recently been recognised by modern research" and "the newly-recognised Cynllibiwg". Researched and recognised by who? Well, by Coplestone-Crow and Remfry, of course. Believe me, if Remfry's article had been accepted and published by a learned journal such as the Welsh History Review his argument would have been torn to shreds by the reviewer - assuming it would have been accepted in the first place. Their theory is based on the three sources already discussed above. As far as I know it is nowhere referred to as a kingdom - even Remfry won't say that as such (check the article). We can not refer to it as a "kingdom" or even a "polity" here on wikipedia, no matter what we may think of it, when it is clearly not accepted as such by mainstream historians. All we have is a place name: there are no 'foundations', just a great deal of imagination and determination to prove a hypothesis. Their argument, and that's all it is, is just not academically valid. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remfry's case is built on slender (rather than non-existent) foundations. See also British Archaeology 1998 and Hull University site - I cannot get into the original webpage. It certainly existed, but it is unclear what it was, which is why I used the word "polity" in the article on Elystan Glodrydd. The Red Book may be available on line at ancestry.com, but I cannot get inot the text, not having a subscription. It was publihsed in 1896 ed. H. Hall in the series Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores ; 99. I will try to look this up. The Hull website identified Calcebuef as mentioned in (or perhaps after) the Archenfield section section of the Herefordshire Domesday Book, and says that Coplestone-Crow made the identification; I think this refers to a book on Herefordshire place-names. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been in a library and extracted the evidence cited by Remfry, which I have quoted in full. It is evident that text (copied from somewhere else into the Red Book of Exchequer) was either already corrupt, or carelessly copied. I still consider that Remfry has built his theory out of very thin evidence, and I have tried to express that uncertainty in what I have written. The Hull website cited appears to reproduce Thorn & Thorn's notes on DB Herefs. I have made the best of this that I can without going down the path that Remfry did. You have convinced me that the evidence does not support it being a kingdom, and I have thus used the word 'lordship', which (I hope) does not beg the question of its status. I hope that (subject to any typos being corrected) this can be the end of the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the transaltion in the block quote is mine. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
