Talk:History of Devon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.	United Kingdom Portal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Devon. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Devon project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance 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 Neutrality: 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 <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

Contents 1 mining 2 celtic survivals 3 Celtic DNA? 4 Celtic Devon

[edit] mining

This section is outside the other time realated ones, if this is giong to happen ought there be other sections as well? Either that or a seperate mining history article? Otherwise it should probably be recombined into the others.(BM)

Yes, you're probably right, it needs merging. I left it as it was because some of the info belongs to a later period section which no-one has yet contributed. Walgamanus 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

good point,according to this Devon history stopped with the stuarts! There should probably be Victorian/20th century history here. (BM)

May be worth making a 'mining in Devon' page like the 'mining in cornwall' one.... (BM)

[edit] celtic survivals

I shall remove the celtic survivals, it is not history, even in the area of research into traditions etc. it is very very contreversial and so far I have seen no-one speak/write on the subject without either falsifying or misrepresenting evidence/research.

This aside, this would not the place for it anyway and I don't think there is any arguing that.

Whether it should be anywhere else on wikipedia is to me also doubtful as it is unorthodox/ original research and from what I have seen goes in the same category as much new age mystic or conspirancy theories. (BM)

If there is any place it would be in a general england traditions type article, Celtic place names and traditions descended from celtic beliefs occour across england. And as to the DNA part this should be under a general British DNA article.

I am also wary to this as If i remember the survey on which this was based the results for devon were not from samples but from linear interpolation of the results between Cornwall and I think it was Somerset.

I have seen these results misrepresented by a website, dewnans i think about this subject, I would like to say innocently but due to the other representations I would have to say that this person started out to purposely misrepresent evidence and on related sites I have seen downright fabrications.

This site which seems to be the core of the whole thing, i think there may only be one person who produced most of this is more of a Victorian mystic religion than anything else. It really is a frightening site and makes you wish that all websites were wiki so some real historians and linguists could re write it.

But the fact is that historians and linguists are not fanatics and are not going to spend that much time critisising complete unacademic rubbish! So in the and whatever bizzaire devon obseesed person/s is pressing this stuff will keep spreading it over the internet to those gullible enough not to question any of it.

131.111.8.103

As I commented below, I didn't think this belonged on a history page either. Only one user seems to have objected to its removal. I think the neutrality tag can come out too now. Walgamanus 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Appears this has slipped in again - in terms of declaring my allegiances, I am on the 'Celtic' side, but I want to see things backed up with evidence. On the one hand sources who vouch for British speech in Devon up the 13th Century are second hand and somewhat removed from the time, and give no details. On the other hand of course we have no reliable information on when English became the local language - so if anything evidence is needed for that position too. At the very least you would think anyone putting this stuff in would try to spell (in English!) properly. Dewnans misspelling certianly and so on just draws attention to the passages. I won't remove them, but won't object if others do - just part of the game. Stevebritgimp 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (forgetting to sign - doh!)

[edit] Celtic DNA?

I'm afraid there's no such thing! --Anon

Er... Celts have DNA too! The sentence you removed was pointing out that there are sequences that are known to differ between Celts and Anglo-Saxons, and that these remain in the local population—perfectly valid statement. I would imagine the studies were of mtDNA, or possibly some repetitive chromosomal DNA. I really don't see how you can argue that Celts don't have DNA, or why you would deny Celtic DNA has a distinct lineage. Joe D (t) 08:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took a moment to look up info on ABO blood groups and major histocompatibility complex proteins, both linked simply and directly to genetics and well studied. In modern British Celts the most common blood group is A, in British Anglo-Saxons it is O. In Celts the most common MHC combination is A2-B44, occuring in 11.4% of the population, while in Anglo-Saxons it is A1-B8 at 9.7%. Celts have five different AB combinations occuring in over 5% of the population, while Anglo-Saxons have only one (A1-B8), suggesting a more homogenous Celtic population. A2-B44, the most common Celtic combination (at 11.4%) is only in 2.6% of Anglo-Saxons, similar story with A29-B44. I could go on. You're welcome to comment on and question Wikipedia material, but if you don't understand something please ask an expert to write a better version rather than just deleting it. Joe D (t) 16:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has DNA but DNA is no basis for being "Celtic". There is no Celtic DNA, as demonstrated by the diversity of genes amongst the modern Celtic peoples.

Did you read the last paragraph? I'm not saying modern Celtic people don't have a diversity of genes, indeed I pointed out that blood groups common in Anglo-Saxon groups are present in modern Celts. But the proportion of genes and gene combinations in modern Celtic groups are significantly different to those of other groups. You reply stating the diversity of genes suggests a serious misunderstanding of the concept of genetic ethnicity. Joe D (t) 18:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the concept of genetic ethnicity There is no such concept of genetic ethnicity, genetic trends can be associated with ethnicity's and often this is the case but not all the time. It seems to me you are pleading a case for an ethnic identity based on genetics and i am sorry but that will not wash. Individuals within an ethnic groups often share the same DNA, but DNA is not the basis for ethnicity. Bretagne 44 13/7/05

Then it seems the sentence does not need to be deleted, simply reworded to state that the DNA studies show that many in the population are descended from historic celtic populations, and discuss the entent to which the culture is "celtic". Genetic ethnicity may or may not be an accepted term (I was using it to describe the fact that ethnic groups often have unique genetic variety, as you accept), I only used it as a simple way to convey the fact that the anon user above, who denied that ethnic groups can have unique genetic makeup, doesn't have a clue what's going on. Joe D (t) 16:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not DNA! I believe in cultural and linguistic ethnicity, not DNA ethnicity. That is a dangerous path. There are a few Gaidhlig speakers in Stornoway of a Pakistani family. I consider them Celts and Scots. As I do the late Ali Abassi.

(- Why is it a dangerous path? - If DNA differences exist, why not say so? - If you consider them Celts and Scots then why did you call them Pakistani? - What about people who don't share your interpretation of ethnicity?)

Because of their origins

DNA or not DNA! Pardon me speaking, possibly out of turn, but I happen to miss the diversity of discussing Cyprus with my Greek friend, shopping for fruit and veg in the Asian-owned shops of Southall and the troubles on the Emerald Isle with my Irish neighbour when I used to live in London...

...genetic ethnicity is not "dangerous", it is fascinating, whether discussing Celts or Viking influence on our shores and islands - it only becomes "dangerous", most gravely dangerous at that, when reduced to the sort of eugenics we saw at the front end of the last century - perhaps there haven't been enough pictures and stories published yet to clarify the folly of following that path?

It worries me that I thought we had learnt and some of us moved on, its scary to see that we haven't.

ric@swuklink.com

Maybe, but if doesn't give anything to stand on for claiming Devon as currently Celtic (it would even make it less Celtic, as it would point that a minute amount of saxons were enough to assimilate the eastern Dumnonians; not something to be proud of); no language, no customs, no people, blood or not.

But it does. Obviously it has other elements, but there are indications the language survived until teh middle ages, there are traditions such as celtic wrestling that survived until the 1800's, and step-dancing which continues to this day, and other traditional customes such as the "hunting of the Earl of Rone"Dewnans 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Devon

I have requested attention for this page, as I feel that it has been written to promote the agenda of a Celtic Devon movement which seeks to downplay the impact of Saxon settlement on Devon in order to promote the idea that Devon is a Celtic nation like Cornwall. As my own neutrality could be questioned, being the former chairman of Wessex Society, and as I feel my own historical knowledge to be insufficient to rewrite the article myself, I am requesting that it be looked at by an independent expert in their field.Nick xylas 17:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Celtic period? Where is the Modern, Anglo Saxon or Roman period heading? I agree with the disputed status of this article. It appears biased in favour of the Celtic Devon movement to the disadvantage of a true picture of Devons history. I believe the article should be removed or totally rewritten. Bretagne 44 23/7/05

I have modified the title "Celtic period" as the verbage was broader than that title indicated. The paragraph does mention the Romans and the arrival of the Saxons. I hope this helps. Dewnans 07:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to login, but I have tried to make this article more neutral. I have also moved the DNA, customs & place-names stuff to the end under "Celtic Survival" although I'm still not sure if this should remain on a history page. I've therefore left the neutrality tag in place. The whole article needs expanding. Did nothing happen in Medieval Devon? Walgamanus 17:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The identification of Peonnan with Pinhoe is certainly disputed, particularly given the suggested subsequent "drive to the Parret". The battle in 661 is noted, but the location is (again) unclear. Further the ASC talks only of a battle - not a victory. The Saxons certainly had an impact in Devon at this time, although the extent of the impact is uncertain. "Celtic survival" should be retained because it is part of the evidence of British continuity in this region. Dewnans 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Peonnan was not mentioned. See changes as per your confusion between Peonnan & Posbury. Personally I would not have mentioned Peonnan at all, as it almost certainly took place in Somerset. Walgamanus 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to the Saxon part of our heritage - there is no mention of the famous victory of Odda of Devon over the Vikings in North Devon - surely worth a mention in the history of Devon, especially as it puts itself into a wider context. Also Odda isn't part of Wikiproject Devon - so I may try to erect some templates or something Stevebritgimp 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)