File talk:Britain 500 CE.png

What is the source of the base map?

Nice to mention the Bavarians, but actually they are mislocated. The Bavarians setteled more to the east along the Danube, that is only very marginally on the very eastern edge of the map. This quotation of the map should by changed to the Alemanni, who actually lived at the Upper Rhine. --El bes (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally, but this map is not accurate: "Based in part upon David Nash Ford's "Early British Kingdoms" and on information derived from Mike Ashley's Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, Bruce Gordon's Regnal Chronologies, and other sources." I appreciate the effort that went into it, but there are a number of trustworthy books by respected historians on the period so why base it on these unreliable sources? (see also the discussion started at Wikipedia Reliable Resources). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This map shows all of Nottinghamshire above the River Trent as being part of Elmet. I can find no other reference anywhere to Nottinghamshire having been in the Kingdom of Elmet and belive it is incorrect.--139.166.245.178 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many problems with this map it is difficult to know where to start. The first problem is that it draws borders where non borders are known. We know very little about the political struction of Britain and Ireland c. 500; while to the unwary this map sets out a neat comforting picture, we don't know the names of most of the kingdoms let alone their borders. Also, many of the names of these areas are totally spurious (e.g. Galwyddel is a modern Welshification of Gall-Gaidheallaib, "Land of the Norse Gaels", and there were no Norse in the region c. 500). Could go on. Map should be deleted, but as that's not possible without going through a ridiculous ordeal, we can content ourselves with removing it from English wiki (though sadly it will probably continue to spread like a virus through non-English wiki). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this to the talk page of the Commons file, I don't see why if we first get it deleted here we can't get try to get it deleted there. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like the chances of it getting attention there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the best solution, knowing from experience what 'en:' wikibureaucracy can be like. Long overdue move. Thanks.

PS Galwyddel is not exactly a "modern" word; it's found as gallwyddel in the Book of Taliesin and a couple of other sources and could date to about the 10th century. Meaning is unclear in those sources but cf. Middle Welsh allt-wyddyl, meaning '(inhabitants of) Galloway' perhaps. I think the association with "Land of the Norse Gaels" is probably from 18th/19th century antiquarian authors (haven'r any refs though). Just out of interest... Enaidmawr (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word Gall-Gaidheal-laib is used from the early 11th century (people term comes from the 9th). That's where Galloway is derived. The above etymology, which I think was propounded by Daphne Brooke (a semi-amateur historian) has long since been thoroughly debunked and was never believed by many if any specialists. Its appearance in later Welsh sources would be derived from the Gaelic term or perhaps from the Gaelic term's Anglicization. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Deacon of Pndapetzim. The literal meaning of allt-wyddyl could be given as "foreign Irishmen" (allt 'foreign, exiled' etc + Gwyddyl 'Irishmen'), i.e. Irish people not living in Ireland. Of course, it could be simply a rationalisation of the term Gall[-]wyddel, itself derived as you note.

By the way, as we seem to have made a start on these dubious maps, were you aware of the other three noted at (I think) Talk:Sub-Roman Britain (or somewhere similar - I'll have to check)? Can't remember as I write this if you have contributed to that debate. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the second G, that's an exact translation of Gall-Gaidheal. If you have access, you can read the article Clancy, Thomas Owen (2008), "The Gall-Ghàidheil and Galloway", Journal of Scottish Name Studies, 2: 19–50, ISSN 1747-7387, which is the most recent and thorough treatment. :) I'll check these maps out. The appalling treatment of sub-Roman British topics on wikipedia is really concerning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: "more myth and myth-information anyone?" At times I feel like giving up on it and letting the loonies take over the asylum. Thanks for the cite. Btw, I read somewhere that the Gwyddyl were actually rebellious Armenian students who fled to Ireland to escape the repressive regime at the Megalithic State University of Zorats Kaher, apparently... :-) Enaidmawr (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh ... wikipedia ... its a war of damage limitation, that's really all we can do. :) The pity is that the reliable sources on this topic are usually really hard to get and expensive. Even a relatively easy to get work, Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Age, which covers the topic a little (at least gives good references), is still around $50 on amazon. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]