Talk:Rhwng Gwy a Hafren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Historicity

Where is your evidence that Remfry's viewpoint has not been accepted by Welsh historians. I'd be interested in some examples of the viewpoint being refuted. 62.25.109.195

Where is the evidence that Remfry's viewpoint is accepted by Welsh historians? I have no examples of the viewpoint being refuted at hand but the glaring omission of any treatment of Cynllibiwg as a medieval Welsh kingdom by anyone other than Remfry is surely testimony enough. Find me a single reputable Welsh historian who refers to the "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" as a recognised entity. And Rhwng Gwy a Hafren itself was a region and is always referred to as such. When an exceptional claim like this is made it is up to its proponent(s) to provide the proof, the absence of any such proof being evidence enough. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think that Welsh historians up to now have tended to ignore the various "kingdoms" of the East Central March - Maelienydd, Elfael etc, for example Hywel ap Goronwy doesn't get much of a look in, although he did seem to be a pretty important figure in the late 11C early 12C. In the same way Madog ab Idnerth and his sons hardly gets mentioned although their contribution to the battle of Aberteifi, a battle which seems to have set the linguistic frontier down to the present day, was pretty substantial. So East Central Wales hasn't really received the attention it deserves from historians who are fixated on Gwynedd and Deheubarth. Of course the rulers of ECW all seem to claim descent from Elystan Glodrydd - whoever he was - and now Remfry (who by the way seems to be a perfectly respectable historian) is putting forward this notion of Cynllibiwg - the fact that historians have not mentioned it before doesn't seem to be of much consequence since it's so new - a refutation of Remfry would be of consequence but at the moment no-one seems to have done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just contemporary Welsh historians who ignore the "kingdom" of Cynllibiwg. It seems rather odd that it is not mentioned a single time in the Brut y Tywysogion or any other contemporary Welsh source. Remfry bases his "notion of Cynllibiwg" on a couple of vague possible references to the name which do not however refer to it as a kingdom. Even allowing for the unprovable possibility of an early proto-kingdom, the evidence for a medieval kingdom of Cynllibiwg is non-existent. It is pure hypothesis. Remfry pads out his argument with references to the local lords of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren presented as if they were the rulers of an entity called Cynllibiwg, but where is the evidence for that? I can find none, and this is the overwhelming majority view. Basically, this "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" is Remfry's theory. With all due respect to him, it remains at present a theory proposed by a minority of two. The Cynllibiwg article describes the events of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's reign in the Rhwng Gwy a Hafren area, for instance, as if they were part of the history of the "kingdom of Cynllibiwg". J. Beverley Smith's extremely detailed account of Llywelyn's reign (Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Tywysog Cymru, University of Wales Press, 1986) goes into great detail about those events and yet does not mention the supposed "kingdom" in all its 450 pages. My sole concern here is with veracity and verifiability and distinguishing fact from theory. The "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" is a theory based on the flimsiest of evidence and should not be presented in an encyclopedia as if it were a proven fact. Enaidmawr (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is one of the status of Cynllibiwg. My guess is that it was a minor polity, which was only semi-independent, being subject in some degree to one or other of the adjoining kingdoms. I suspect we are almost as ignorant as to the doings of the rulers of Brychwieniog and Gwent in this period. This is a period when not every polity is likely to have enjoyed full sovereignty, but that does not prevent it being a polity with some status. The name seems to be a cymrised (if there is such a word) of words that do appear in English sources. The truth is that there are virtually no sources, positive or negative, so that conclusions must be drawn from what little there is.

To me the question is what to do with the two articles. Should they not be merged? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

Thanks for the feedback. I'd almost forgotten about this. I tend to agree they should be merged with Cynllibiwg going into Rhwng Gwy a Hafren (redirect Cynllibiwg there). Practically all the historical data in the Cynllibiwg article is extrapolated from the history of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren and applied to the theoretical kingdom. I think I've already said enough on the argument about the validity of Remfry's theory; it is unproven and probably unprovable. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but this is an encyclopedia and so has to deal in accepted facts. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support a merge. I would suggest that the resultant article should have a section on the uncontroversial history of the area - its princes and theri descents, and a separate section dealing with the issue of Cynllibiwg.

Some years ago, I looked into the generalogies of several minor dynasties in the area, all of which went back to a common ancestor Tegonwy, who must have lived about AD 800. From him descended the dynasties of Powys, Gwerthyrnion, Arwyystli, and Cydewain. Powys split from the others on Tegonwy's death, and Gwerthyrion a generation later, but Arwystli and Cydewain split 8 generations later in the late 11th century. This does not include Maelienydd and Elfael which would presumably be a separate polity. This all came from genealogies published by Bartrum, but that is about as much as I can say.

Do I detect a personal name Cynllibi in Cynllibiwg. If so, do we have any idea who he was and when he lived? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. The second paragraph in the Rhwng Gwy a Hafren article is about Cynllibiwg so there is already a basis for that section. You ask about the etymology of Cynllibiwg. I know of no person called Cynllib (as the name would be). Indeed one of the problems with Cynllibiwg is that it draws pretty much a complete blank in any book on medieval Wales - and I have a good library, including medieval Welsh literature - apart from Remfry's work. That's the nub of the problem. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru gives nothing that might be directly related to the names Cynllibiwg/Cynllib. One of the meanings of cyn- is "foremost, first, chief, etc", but the nearest to llib is llibin/llibyn meaning "soft, flaccid, meandering, etc etc", which rather suggests that Cynllibiwg is a purely geographical name (to do with the lay of the land; river(s)?). So that too seems a dead end, and anyway would be classed as Original Research without a published source. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)