Talk:Attacotti/Archive 1

"T", "Z", and "S" are often related sounds. Consider "Tyre", "Zidon", and "Sidon", for example. Could "Attacotti" and "Azacotti" and "(a)Sacotti" and "Scotti" be related, therefore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Article problems

The main body of the article is a copy (or vice versa) of this external web page, complete with spurious speculations on Attacotti morals and cannibalistic inclinations. Added to that are sections offering self-described speculations titled as "theories". The references cited are themselves instances of modern-day speculations. Notuncurious (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Article replacement

No response to the note above; also, the sections on "Irish origin theory" and "Pre-celtic origin theory" are copies from web sites that proffer various theories on various subjects, none of which is encyclopedic. So I did some research and wrote a replacement article, consistent with factual evidence, and properly documented. Notuncurious (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty sound. I've changed one wikilink - you had "Scots" linking to Scottish people, which deals with people from the modern country of Scotland, which didn't yet exist, so I've made it link to Scoti, the ancient people who gave Scotland their name but originally came from Ireland. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid normalisation

Normalisation is usually a good thing, but here it makes the direct quotes inconsistent ("Picts, Scots, Saxons" becomes "Picts, Scotti, Saxons") and sprinkles that same inconsistency throughout the article ... it was my error that introduced "Scottish people", and Nicknack009 caught my error and changed it to "Scoti" ... it looks like 84.186.164.59 made a copy of my text, then Nicknack009 corrected my error, then 84.186.164.59 pasted his edited copy of my text back in (still containing my error), which Nicknack009 caught again. I think we're okay now, let's forego that particular normalisation for this article, and also not normalise the other peoples mentioned. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid undo

Thank you, Notuncurious, for taking the trouble to explain your undo. I will explain my "un-undo". I of course appreciate your point about inconsistency in Latin and anglicised forms of proper names (and I would not suggest "Picti, Scotti and Saxones"). I note, however, that the quotations in any case already contain instances of this inconsistency (esp. the Jer. Adv. Jov. quote: e.g. Sarmatians and Quadi; why Bactrians but Hyrcarni, and not [more usual] Hycarnians?). More to the point, this is an inconsistency which classicists/ancient historians have been happy (indeed have preferred) to live with for more than 50 years. Picts and Saxons (whether Latinised or anglicised) are easily recognised, unambiguous historical (ancient) peoples; Scots and Scotti pose greater difficulty. The important point, I would suggest, is to distinguish "Scotti" from "Scots". In the period and topic under discussion the word "Scotti" is used more as a historian's "terminus technicus" than as a straightforward ethnonym, precisely to differentiate "Scotti", as raiders/migrants from Ireland (of course I simply), from the mediaeval/modern nation of "the Scots". This is more than a terminological nicety: the anachronistic use of "Scots" here is not only potential misleading but also, dare I say, simply "wrong". By way of comparison, in writing of Caesar's campaign against the Belgae in 57 BC, one would certainly err if one referred to his victory of "the Belgians". Given that mainstream scholarship uniformly employs (in a technical sense) "Scotti" in this context, and, I note, this is also the case with related wikipedia pages (e.g. "Great Conspiracy" and the link to "Scoti/Scotti" from "Attacotti" page), I have, with respect, undone your undo.

I would also note, by way of appendix, that there may be some additional merit in retaining "Scotti" because of the "Scotti et Attacotti" of the Latin, since such prose rhythm and assonantal qualities would certainly not have escaped so consummate (if artificial) a Latin stylist as Ammianus, and may (in different ways) have fostered the association of the two peoples in the minds of Roman authors or even affected the morphology of the name/designation "Attacotti". I of course welcome response. Regards 84.186.164.59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.164.59 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can live with it. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Add epilogue, etc

Item 1

Hoping these are agreeable,

• added an epilogue section with a bit more evidence.
• altered 84.186.164.59's citation style, which I like but am just trying to keep the style consistent.
• moved the characterisation of Jerome's writings from the last paragraph of the section to the lead paragraph.
• alphabetised references.
• left out the quoted Latin text, which isn't useful unless English-language readers can read Latin (for quotes of Ammianus, I referenced both English and Latin sources with page numbers, but used only the English source in the article).
• minorly changed several particulars in my own contributed references.
• altered 84.186.164.59's description of the Letter to Oceanus (and included more of the letter in the quote) to be more relevant for someone reading about the Attacotti (while 84.186.164.59's description is more general and relevant to someone reading about Jerome or Christianity, I thought) ... neither description is inaccurate, I hope. Also included the page number in the citation.

Of more substance, an item for deletion, specifically: the newly-added last paragraph of the St. Jerome section. Haven't made the change yet, please respond here with any comments.

• This is an article about the Attacotti, and has no connection to Diodorus' and Strabo's generalities attributing cannibalism to ancient Ireland and Britain. Either put this kind of thing in every article about every ancient Irish and British people, or take it out of this article.
• Why is Rance's "Attacotti, Déisi and Magnus Maximus: the case for Irish Federates in late Roman Britain" included as a reference? It is not a reference. This is an article about what is known of the Attacotti, not about someone's case for connecting them with Irish Federates.
• I've seen the attribution before, that Jerome says he "saw" the Atticotti eat people ... doesn't make sense, but seems to play to the sensationalisation of the topic ... as 84.186.164.59 notes, Jerome was in Gaul (365-369/70) at the same time that the Attacotti were known to be rampaging through Britain, and were not in Roman service in Gaul at the same time and place where and when Jerome was in Gaul ... it is absurd to uncritically accept that man-eating Attacotti were casually eating people in Christian Roman Gaul while in Roman service, and repeat the story as if it had any merit ... about the best that can be done with this quote is to note that "spe adolescentulus in Gallia viderim" was someone's error in transcribing "spe adolescentulus in Gallia auderim", as that at least implies good faith rather than pandering to a salacious readership ... and saying he "saw" it raises the quote in "Against Jovinianus" to eyewitness testimony, contrary to the mention of every other people, and contrary to the tone of the quote.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 2

Perfectly agreeble to epilogue; citation style; reshaping of Jerome section (a definite improvement); deletion of Latin (fine).

Re. new description of Ep. ad Oceanum; I appreciate the point about catering to the audience of this entry (not an entry on Jerome), but I'm not sure the issue of this letter is now accurately described. I will give this consideration.

Of more substance:

Re. Diodorus and Strabo. They are cited, just as with the reference to polyandry in classical sources, because such authors are specimens of the literary and cultural background to Jerome's assumptions about Scotti/Attacotti (broadly conceived as "British peoples"). Jerome, as one of the best-educated, most well-read (in three languages) and prolific authors of his day, was heir to a vast literary tradition. It is the duty of a historical article not only the assess the reliability of source material, but also to explain, from a historiographic perspective, why an ancient author held a particular view (even if a manifestly false or absurd view), especially when that author's view has been so influential in shaping subsequent opinion and modern scholarship (and there is no doubting that that is the case here). Explaining the cannibalism reference does not equate to accepting its veracity. It simply won't do just to say Jerome is "wrong" or "sensationalist", and leave it at that.

Re. Rance's article. It is cited because, whether or not you accept his hypothesis that Attacotti (via Aithechthuatha) were some sort of "foederati" (and personally I'm inclined to regard it as rather speculative), the paper nevertheless remains the most recent and most thorough collection and assessment of the evidence (direct and tangential) for this subject. Rance is a well-regarded academic specialising in late antiquity, esp. the late Roman army; his paper is published in an internationally renown journal and thus (presumably) was subject to peer-review by 2/3 other scholars with expertise in the field. It has come to be cited (sometimes favourably, sometimes neutrally) in classical scholarship. In the current wikiarticle it is cited specifically in relation to St. Jerome, because Rance makes interesting and relevant (and IMO unexceptionable) comments on Jerome's literary affinities in the quoted passages and the dating of Jerome's stay in Gaul. Anyone interested in proceeding beyond wikipedia to scholarly literature will want to (and, frankly, should) read Rance; even if you/we reject part/most/all of his thesis, it has clearly prompted interest in the topic and provides a starting-point for further discussion. To omit the reference strikes me as a rather "Taliban-esque" approach to history writing.

Re. Saint Jerome's "viderim". I'm not quite sure of the problem here. It is clearly (and is explicitly described as) a rhetorical claim to autopsy typical of (esp. late) Latin authors - participation being considered a better marker of reliability than knowledge or technical expertise. If you wish to make this yet more explicit, then fine. I would strongly resist the temptation to tamper with the Latin text: I don't have a critical edition of Jer. Ep. ad Oceanum to hand in order to check the apparatus, but, with so important a church father, I would be surprised if the reading "viderim" has not been scrutinised by generations of editors. I agree completely that "it is absurd to uncritically accept" the allegation of cannibalism, but I don't believe anyone is doing that, nor do I see how anyone reading the current text would come away with that impression. Again, there seems to be a temptation here to suppress (rather than explain) the evidence. Regards 84.186.164.59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.164.59 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 3

Hello 84.186.164.59, thanks for the response and the opportunity to converse. My reply is below.

• Re the new description of Ep. ad Oceanum: I added (in parens) that this was Jerome's response "in part", which certainly is not a full and accurate description of his issue ... I meant it to be accurate regarding his passing reference to the Attacotti with respect to licentiousness and promiscuity, which is only part of Jerome's issue (as you correctly noted), but I thought it was the only part specifically relevant to the Attacotti ... if you think it over and conclude otherwise, I think that I'll be fine with that.
• Re Diodorus and Strabo: your mention of Jerome seems off-target here and my point is not addressed - that their generalistic remarks are appropriate for inclusion regarding everyone, or regarding no one. It seems intrusive and distracting to include them in this particular article as though their comments apply here in some way that doesn't apply elsewhere. As I read your comment, it seems that you are implying that the generalities of these two ancients has some special meaning regarding Jerome that doesn't apply to everyone else (as notable as Jerome was, he was not the only educated and well-read ancient with a literary tradition).
• Re Rance's article: this offers nothing that hasn't been offered before; I make no comment on whether there is a connection between Ireland and the Attacotti of Britain; the issue is one of Irish history (where I have my own reasons for sympathy), and there it should stay until a connection beyond speculation is made, and that day is not yet here. The Attacotti were uninteresting until Charles Bertram's forgery placed them near the better-known Dal Riata and suggested a connection to Ireland; that is the point when serious efforts began to connect them to the Aithechthuatha class-of-people (not earlier) with citations to Bertram; and when Betram was exposed definitively, the same efforts simply continued without the citation, and continue today without new evidence. Which is not to say that the efforts are wrong, only that they are still speculation pending the arrival of evidence, and Rance does not change that. As for conjecture and speculation about a class comparable to the Aithechthuatha in Britain, the Cumbrians can make a better (but not evidenciary) case, considering Roman behavior towards them and the Attacotti ... Theodosius' rearrangement of troops in 369 placed troops along the north and northwest but not along the western coast; accepting Attacotti into the army is unlikely if the Attacotti were considered alien Irish (like the Scots) but not unreasonable if they were considered Roman subjects forced into banditry by a corrupt administration and weak military, which is a Cumbrian view. At any rate, there are a number of sources (for and against) that can be cited here, and Rance does not merit special attention, I think.
• Re the translation of "saw" vs. "heard", I think you have a minority opinion not widely shared (or no longer widely shared) ... of the editors of the reference I cite, one was "D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York" and the other was "D.D., Principal of King's College, London", they claim the work was done "in connection with a number of patristic scholars of Europe and America", and the actual translators are all credentialed and at respected institutions ... they are certainly motivated to produce a true copy of an important Saint's contributions to Church history, they seem to have the credentials to do it correctly, and they are not shy about quoting Jerome's other gratuitously disparaging remarks about various peoples ... would you have another look at your sources?

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 4

Hello Notuncurious, thank you for the response; the debate is instructive. My reply:

• Re Diodorus and Strabo: if I understand correctly, your view appears to be that classical reports of alleged cannibalism among peoples of the British Isles have no special relevance to an article about an allegedly cannibalistic people of the British Isles, nor to the classicizing author of that allegation. Is that really your view? If so, I can only disagree; they do. With respect, your earlier remark “Either put this kind of thing in every article about every ancient Irish and British people, or take it out of this article” seems beside the point; the issue here is (alleged) cannibalism. You correctly say that this salacious detail was (and remains) an essential ingredient in the “notoriety” of the Attacotti, indeed lies at its core. You correctly identify Jerome as the culprit. Therefore, Jerome’s comment requires explanation, not simply negation. To be clear, and at the risk of repeating myself, I’m not for a moment giving credence to Jerome’s allegation (and if you think that I have, then I’m more than happy to reword); I’m seeking to contextualise the allegation within the self-conscious ethnographic traditions to which Jerome was heir, and within the literary education of which he was a product. The classical reports are not “generalities”; quite the opposite, they are culturally/ethnically specific to the British Isles. You appear to be very keen to debunk the cannibalism myth once and for all; in this aim I am your steadfast ally. I do not think this can be achieved, however, by simply declaring Jerome “absurd” and failing to explaining why. I would contend that this, in effect, “closing down” of the subject leaves room for the “well, maybe there is some truth in old Jerome” approach. On the contrary, the article needs to explain clearly (and if necessary at length), with as much cultural, historical and literary context as can be mustered, why Jerome wrote or believed (if he did) the allegations of cannibalism and sexual license. If you are trying to show libel, then you need to prove libel.

• Re. Rance’s article. With respect, you do not address any of my points, but go off in a different direction. The article is not cited in connection with “Irish origin theory” nor in connection with “federates” (nor Betram nor Cumbrians) – there is not a word on these topics. The article is cited in specific connection with Jerome, and, I believe, correctly so, with the standard encyclopaedic function of “see further”. Just because you do not agree with part, is not a reason to damn the whole. Indeed, I think Rance should also be cited in (again specific) connection with the Notitia, as should also R. Scharf, ‘Aufrüstung und Truppenbenennung unter Stilicho: Das Beispiel der Atecotti-Truppen’, Tyche 10 (1995) 161-78. Any encyclopaedic entry should supply up-to-date “Further Reading”. These two peer-reviewed publications, by respected scholars in the field, should be referenced, if only because they are the most recent and comprehensive discussions of the evidence and assemble a large older bibliography. To omit/delete these items just because you don’t like them is a privileging of your opinion and falls short of editorial neutrality.

• Re the translation of “saw” vs. “heard”. I’m very sympathetic to your stance, but I can’t see how your response changes anything. The academic credentials of Wace and Schaff are indeed impeccable, but how is this relevant? (and, as series editors, their contribution to the translations could have been minimal). It is not a question here of the translator’s credentials but of contemporary translational style and methodology. Even a glance at the Latin reveals that the Schaff translation is a typical product of its day, i.e. rather loose by modern standards (e.g. if one can render “audiant” > “tell them”, one can make “viderim” > “heard”). As a broad generalisation, nineteenth-/early twentieth-century translations from Greek and Latin placed greater emphasis on the demands of a smooth, readable English text than a close rendering of the original; in this respect the Ante-/Post-Nicene Library is something of a “curate’s egg” (no pun intended). Certainly modern (re)translations of patristic texts are much tighter (e.g. the excellent “Translated Texts for Historians” [Princeton/Liverpool] series). In any case, no argument can rest on a nineteenth-century translation and, in itself, it is not evidence for my holding a “minority opinion”; nor does it make “viderim” go away. It is possible (and I shall check) that “videre”, perhaps as a late usage, had acquired a generic perceptive sense, i.e. Jerome “had come to learn/know/understand”, regardless of the organ involved (indeed “see” is used in this sense in English). But it seems to me that all this rather misses two, more important points. First, Jerome is clearly at pains to claim personal (ipse) participation or association – to repeat, we don’t have to believe this, indeed it is so standard a rhetorical device of Latin authors as to render face-value acceptance hazardous, but, for that very reason, I think the point needs to be explained. Second, regardless of what we may think of Jerome’s testimony, the fact remains that his stay in Gaul does coincide, almost exactly, with Attacotti raiding reported by Ammianus – this is fact, not interpretation. I struggle to put this down to mere coincidence, and the point should be made (and, to revert, Rance’s discussion here is pertinent and should be cited). Kind regards, 84.186.164.59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.158.92 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 5

Hello 84, I'll be back to respond presently, am having some weather-related IP problems at the moment. In the interim, allow me to go off-topic:

• If you append 4 tilde's (~~~~) to your comments, that will be transformed into a "signature and timestamp" when you save your edits, consisting of the same information that is now being added by a wikipedia robot, and then the robot will go away ... I use the 4 tilde's to sign my own edits. But it's of no substantial consequence either way.
• You probably have considered it already, but consider again registering for wikipedia ... you need only an email address (which wikipedia keeps for itself) ... it brings no obligations, and you can continue as you are now doing (become more involved or not, as you please) ... your signature on your edit's will then have your self-chosen moniker and your IP number will no longer be relevant (which is good, since you have a changing IP number; today's number is different than yesterday's number).
• More to the point of registering for wikipedia, having more editors with a deeper-than-hobby-level interest is to the general good of all, as well as being my own personal preference.

Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 6

Thank you, Notuncurious, for the technical advice. Other than periodic dabbling, I'm obviously new to this medium and its etiquette. Regards 84.186.158.92 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 7

Hello 84, I've tried to make this talk page easier to navigate by inserting section numbers, which is generally frowned upon because it might look like I'm trying to "change the history", but I'll hope the powers-that-be are tolerant and understanding (and let me know if you prefer it as it used to be). Let's see if we make partial progress with a couple of suggestions (but also continuing in other areas). To the issues at hand:

• regarding "saw" versus "heard": a "this source" versus "that source" won't resolve into either if the sources are reputable, and it looks like they are (even though they conflict), so how about this ... I'll try to come up with something for the article that includes both and is fair to both, and we'll know when this effort has succeeded because you'll be happy with it ... fair enough? And if so, could you provide a good reference to be included, just for the sake of completeness?

• regarding a "see further" section: adding it is my intent; wikipedia articles tend to have some evolution (as this one has had and will have) ... you came on the scene right after I installed the article, which I considered to be in good enough form for now but not necessarily anything that was "set in stone"; I have no private agenda to suppress information by omission. Indeed, my present objections to Rance (and most others) rather goes away if he is put in this section. While it's difficult to gain a sense of someone's agenda (and we all have one) over the internet, I'll hope that in the fullness of time, you'll conclude that my motives aren't as disreputable as you seem to suspect ... fair enough?
• We're at odds regarding how each other views Rance in particular ... am I right to gather that including him in the "see further" addresses you concerns (and possibly even with annotations)?

• regarding the inclusion of Scharf's German-language contribution, I think that it's a bit dicey as a reference because this is an English-language encyclopedia (so this wouldn't be useful without a translation; but that is a "want" and not a "need"); but it's lack of availability almost makes it "exclusive and private information" available to some but not all. There's no problem with it as a "see further" (and by the way, from the title alone I wouldn't mind having access to it myself) ... have I addressed your concerns here?

• regarding the references to Diodorus and Strabo:
  • Re my lack of connection between these two and Jerome ... we might be misunderstanding each other's point ... I didn't say Jerome was "absurd" (but I was characterising an uncritical reading of him as such, and that was aimed at the general world, not to imply that that was what you were doing); I attribute the salaciousness of cannibalistic references to those making the references, and NOT to Jerome - either I phrased it poorly or your interpretation was off-target: I'm not in the habit of gratuitously attacking saints or anyone else. And I'm not "keen to debunk" the cannibalism myth; I like to think that I prefer the actual source rather than someone's characterisation of the source, and that is on-target to my intended efforts within this article.
  • Your reference to Diodorus is below; a translation, but certainly better than anyone's characterisation of it (and I would prefer it to a characterisation of it). Let me know if you were referring to some other passage (and if so, I'll be interested to read it). My view towards Strabo versus quotes about Strabo are similar ... your thoughts?

And now it will be worth while to declare that which multitudes are altogether ignorant of. Those who inhabit the inland parts beyond Massilia, and about the Alps, and on this side the Pyrenes mountains, are called Celts; but those that inhabit below this part are called Celtica, southward to the ocean and the mountain Hyrcinus, and all as far as Scythia, are called Gauls. But the Romans call all these people generally by one and the same name, Gauls.

The women here are both as tall and as courageous as the men. The children, for the most part, from their very birth are grey-headed ; but when they grow up to men's estate, their hair changes in colour like to their parents. Those towards the north, and bordering upon Scythia, are so exceeding fierce arid cruel, that (as report goes) they eat men, like the Britains that inhabit Iris.

They are so noted for a fierce and warlike people, that some have thought them to be those that antiently overran all Asia, and were then called Cimerians, and who are now (through length of time) with a little alteration, called Cimbrians.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 8, an about-face on Diodorus and Strabo

Hello 84, I've had a change of opinion on including these 2 ancient sources: they should be quoted directly, of course, and in their own section ... quote them and let people decide for themselves whether this merits the assertions of cannibalism ... I gave the quote from Diodorus in my previous note, and below is the quote from Strabo ... what do you think?

There are also other small islands around Britain; but one, of great extent, Ierna, lying parallel to it towards the north, long, or rather, wide; concerning which we have nothing certain to relate, further than that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons, feeding on human flesh, and enormous eaters, and deeming it commendable to devour their deceased fathers, as well as openly to have commerce not only with other women, but also with their own mothers and sisters. But this we relate perhaps without very competent authority; although to eat human flesh is said to be a Scythian custom; and during the severities of a siege, even the Kelts, the Iberians, and many others, are reported to have done the like.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 9

Hello, Notuncurious. Your changes do make this page much easier to navigate. Thank you for the responses/suggestions, which offer, I think, a very good agenda for progress. I am in general agreement with all proposals; there follow mere qualifications.

• Re "saw" versus "heard": yes, do formulate some compromise, though I still caution that this is not a question of “this source” versus “that source”, but rather of the received Latin text of Jerome versus a nineteenth-century English translation/interpretation of it - ostensibly, there is no contest. I maintain, however, that the problem is essentially rhetorical rather than linguistic, i.e. the problem lies in a “topos” of Latin rhetoric (alleged personal observation) rather than with the verb used or its meaning; but in the meantime I shall check the later usages of “video” in lexica, and the reading “viderim” in the apparatus criticus of Jer. Adv. Jovin. I wanted to do this anyway because there seems to be some slight inconsistency in the secondary literature regarding the orthography of At(t)icot(t)i in the two Jer. passages, and I would like to check the manuscript variants. This may also be a problem with the text of Ammianus, which in parts relies on a tenuous manuscript tradition.

• A “See Further” bibliographic section is an excellent idea. Re. "agendas": I appreciate that the article is evolving and, having examined earlier versions, I think that your complete rewrite is a great improvement, esp. in ridding the article of theory (or, frankly, twaddle) presented as fact. As I said, I am unused to this medium and I suspect that I have imported practices and approaches from printed publications. As an academic, I am used to fairly “robust” debate, and if I have been “overly robust” (= rude) then I apologise for my tone; no bad faith was assumed nor insult intended.

• Placing Rance and others in “See Further” is fine. I would “ideally” like to see them, selectively, in annotations as well, wherever they are of specific and/or supplementary value to particular points, especially if the reference is a long publication: e.g. Rance, regardless of his wider thesis, makes (in my view) insightful and important interpretative remarks on all three of Amm., Jer. and Notitia. And Scharf is insightful on Notitia. Unless this overburdens the annotations?

• Inclusion of Scharf’s publication, I think, would do no harm, and, at the high risk of seeming pompous, I’m personally adverse to creeping Anglophone monoglottism, but I take the point about access. Indeed, I suspect that even native German-speakers would find Scharf heavy-going. He takes a long time to make a few, albeit important points about the relative chronology of the four auxilia palatina entitled “Atecotti” in the Notitia (Scharf is an expert on the late Roman army, who has written much on the Notitia, military nomenclature etc.). He demonstrates beyond doubt, and in line with abundant evidence from late Roman regimental titulature, that the unit with the simplest title (here “Atecotti”) must be the earliest. Those units with additional designations (Honoriani, seniores/iuniores, Gallicani) are later developments, probably drawing successive cadres from the original unit, which casts serious doubt on the degree to which such units remained “native”. Scharf’s attempt to establish absolute dates for the different stages of this relative chronology is, in my view, less successful. If the German is not acceptable/available, then Rance in fact provides a brief but useful digest of Scharf. Rance also takes Scharf’s argument significantly further, by pointing out that the location of the unit “Atecotti” in Illyricum, in the eastern half (pars Orientis) of the Notitia, necessarily places the original raising of this unit prior to the date of this section of the Notitia (conventionally ca. 395; though recent arguments have moved the date slightly to 399/400). This of course does not tell us exactly when this earliest unit of “Atecotti” was raised, nor when it arrived in Illyricum, but it does offer a terminus ante quem of 399/400. I also recall that both Scharf and Rance discuss a contemporary inscription, I think from Thessalonica (?), and thus also in Illyricum, bearing a funerary dedication to a soldier of the “unit of Ateg[c]utti”. This epigraphic evidence is omitted from the current wiki-article, though its relevance seems evident (it also provides partial confirmation for Seeck’s restoration/normalisation “Atecotti”). In any case, you probably know all about this and it is something to consider for a later phase of development

• Diodorus/Strabo. I think you should deploy this contextual material however you think best. I’m marginally inclined towards the footnotes, to avoid cluttering the text, but the footnotes are equally prone to congestion. Whatever you think works.

Best regards 84.186.153.167 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 10

Hello 84, that sounds great. I'll make a pass at revising the article, and we can then knead it into improvement. With the weekend upcoming, it won't be immediate. To the topics at hand:

• Re "saw" versus "heard" ... I think that I've come around to your perspective here; I'll look for a reasonable, "citable" source (or use yours if it is near at hand), but failing that will work with your description of the discrepancy (and if I have to keep the same Adv. Jov. quote, will find a way to stress that it's at variance with other reliable sources). The issue is much easier to deal with in your terms, where the absolute assertion of eyewitness testimony is mitigated.
• Re "see further" section ... we have greater flexibility here, and can annotate rather freely; words like "insightful" might be challenged as someone's personal opinion, but (incongruously) we can probably use words like "excellent", as in "an excellent source to pursue questions about ... ", and similar such. For myself, I see this as a service to the readers, offering help in pointing them to further related study of the topic.
• Re academia and "robust" discussions ... I had suspected as much from our previous discussions; I have had such discussions as well (though mostly in the scientific research arena), and consider terms such as "rubbish", "rot", and "drivel" to be part of the productive conversation when applied to my contributions, and intend to continue with that attitude. In a purely internet collaboration, without a face-to-face or a voice-to-voice, it can be difficult to get a feel for things at first (when I'm not in academic-discussion mode, so to speak), so I wanted to be sure my intent was clear. I think now that I was probably a bit too sensitive; I never thought you rude, and please continue to comment as you have done, as that is when the content of the discussion is optimal.

Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Item 11, article update

Hello 84, sorry for the delay; and I'm away from JSTOR for the moment (would have to go to the library, things are temporarily inconvenient); I've put up a new version, comments most welcome. By the way, I had a chance to go back through our talk page, and I find that some of my own comments have a variance over time, and a point-of-view-inclusion, both of which are to be avoided, while a review of your own comments does not imply the same aptitude ... moving along quickly now:

• the lead section is expanded; and I added a "background" section about Britain in 364-69 (I had a chance to lightly re-read through Ammianus again, and this seemed appropriate; please say so if you have reservations or any thoughts on the best presentation of the context).
• I added a "Modern Research" section, which can be enhanced/altered (for work such as Rance's and Scharf's, among others); also, the "Historical References" are all in one inclusive section now, and Rance and Scharf are formal references in the "Notitia" section (in a small way, but still ...)
• the "further study" section is there, along with Rance and Scharf; feel free to enhance and add or to suggest additions/enhancements; the "see also" section is to mention related wikipedia articles, which I didn't fill in, but others are welcome to do so.
• The section on Jerome's Adv. Jov. is there ... comments/objections/suggestions/etc regarding content most welcome; in particular, should the 3rd interpretation be pitched (it alleges transcript corruption and re-interprets the whole thing)? I did some searching regarding transcriptions and translations ... tried to give it a reasonable explanation, but I think it could be better.
• A major aggravation on the direct quotes, and Adv. Jov. is the real cause of "article bloat" ... I tried every combination I could think of, with nothing resulting that I liked: (1) with discussion in the article and quotes in the notes, the article is shorter, but loses credibility and the notes section is impossible; (2) using only a single line rather than the paragraph of the quotes elevates the importance of the quotes because context is gone, and I'm not comfortable with the effect (which perhaps should be considered a personal quirk); (3) leaving the paragraph in the article, to me, seems to give the best telling of the story, but the article seems inappropriately long .... having rehashed this multiple times in my own mind and finding nothing really satisfactory, I think that I need to set it down for a few days or simply pick something ... feedback welcome here in particular. *sigh* On the other hand, this passage is the real reason that most people are interested in the Attacotti of Britain, and thus may merit much more space ...

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin / Location

A sledge-hammer revert to the old text? The recent revision was an attempt to offer an accurate and balanced presentation of the various hypotheses. If it was not deemed perfect, then so be it, but it nevertheless replaced a profoundly misleading and, in many parts, demonstrably erroneous text. E.g. 1. The "De Situ Britanniae" (DSB) did NOT "placed the Attacotti in the same part of Scotland as the Irish kingdom of Dál Riata" - this is straightforwardly false. In DSB the Attacotti are located further up the Clyde near Dumbarton (i.e, later [Brythonic] Kingdom of Strathclyde), and this was how all 18/19C readers read the work. The attached map is therefore also erroneous. 2. Also false is the assertion that, somehow in consequence of DSB, "certain Irish historians were quick to connect the Attacotti to Ireland." Nor was O'Connor "relying on the fictional information of DSB" - this is simply rubbish! There was no connection (real or assumed) between Dal Riata and Attacotti, or between DSB and O'Connor's (and subsequent scholars') advocacy of an Irish origin. Accordingly, the exposure of DSB as a forgery is irrelevant and has no implications for their hypothesis (thus "any tangible evidence of a connection disappeared with it" is a non sequitur). 3. The catalogue of 'anti-O'Connor' quotations from 19C authorities in the former text was clearly compiled by a contributor who had no knowledge of Old Irish or the profound developments in Irish historical philology which post-date the (mostly) amateur enthusiasts cited (e.g. their arguments based on pronunciation are irrelevant since, at the time, they thought Old Irish was pronounced much like contemporary Irish). And in any case, in the 4/5C we are dealing with Primitive Irish not Old Irish. 4. The language and tone of the previous text are distorted and unbalanced: e.g. "... Charles O'Conor ... asserted ... assertions continued ... This was criticised by Gaelic-speaking scholars, to no effect" (as if O'Connor was not "Gaelic-speaking!!). By all means reedit, but the former text is an unacceptable soup of errors, misrepresentations and obsolete scholarship, and a revert fails to engaged with any these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.205.159 (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I can tell that your edits are in good faith, and aimed at repairing what you see as an error. However, they are following a "theory" (and the area is overly rich with them), rather than historical facts. Such a theory might belong in the Déisi article, or in a similar one. However, I think fairly, not in this article. That said, I would like to note that I sympathetically appreciate the tone and phrasing that you used ... it is clearly an effort to improve the article. A few points:

• The article discusses the historical Attacotti (of which there are but three mentions in the historical record, plus one that is a forgery). Inclusions should be supported by citations from history (a pet theory, however popular, is still someones conjecture or speculation or opinion, but it is not history).
• The DSB quote is direct and accurate. Please check it out if you have any doubts (and please check the source directly, not what someone else interprets the source to mean). The map shows the DSB location accurately. This is a major point.
• You seem to be defending historical Irish spellings and pronunciations, as though they were under attack ... they are not under any assault (at least, not by me) ... the authors who dispute the validity of connecting the Attacotti of Amianus' telling (and worse, assuming the connection in passing, as did O'Donovan) were emphatically pro-Irish in their tellings of history.
• O'Conor, like everyone of his time, believed in the validity of DSB; Irish history is largely untainted by DSB because the Irish preferred their (accurate) manuscripts to DSB whenever there was a conflict; however, they used DSB as an authority when there was no conflict. This is specifically true of O'Conor, who cites DSB (either as "Richard" or "the monk of Cirencester") in his writings.
• I came across the citations to DSB by O'Conor when I was researching and reading his work ... I wrote the wikipedia article about him (so yes, I know he was a native Gaelic-speaker), and if you read it, I doubt you will find anything but respect for his efforts. He was a giant, highly influential, infinitely worth reading, and his connection of the Attacotti to Ireland is the root of the connection. However, anyone can make an error, and here is one of his. When DSB was debunked (after his death), some people kept up the connection without attribution.
• As for the other Irish authors I cite, I have contributed minorly to their wikipedia articles (especially including their books, which I am inclined to read), and have authored some of them (such as Todd, as well as O'Conor), mostly as a byproduct of reading their works. This is hardly consistent with your hints of un-Irish or anti-Irish bias on my part.
• Yes, of course any (Scottish) genealogies based on DSB are inaccurate ... the inclusion of this extraneous factoid sounds like a gratuitous negative; it also sounds like a partisan shot in a dispute that should have died long ago. By the way, O'Conor was quite prominent in the 18th century version of this dispute, regarding the so-called Ossian cycle, and in the origin of the Scots ... I mentioned this in the O'Conor article. Mention of genealogical accuracy belongs in the respective articles on genealogy, but is out of place in the Attacotti article, as it relates to DSB and not to the historical Attacotti.

I look forward to your response here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your considered reply. There are many points here and, given my time constraints, I hope you will for the moment accept a partial response.

You say "* The DSB quote is direct and accurate. Please check it out if you have any doubts (and please check the source directly, not what someone else interprets the source to mean). The map shows the DSB location accurately. This is a major point."

I agree, this is a major point. I would suggest, however, that the DSB quote, as it stands, is neither "direct" nor "accurate", and in fact incorporates "what someone else interprets the source to mean". The quoted text reads: "Lower down, to the banks of the Clotta [Firth of Clyde] inhabited the Attacotti, a people once formidable to all Britain. (footnote) The Attacotti occupied a considerable part of Argyle, as far as Lochfyn [ Loch Fyne ]."

This quote is cited from an English trans. of Bertram, produced 50 years after the editio princeps of DSB. This quote contains only a portion of the relevant text and, strangely, incorporates a footnote (apparently added by the editor/translator of the 1809 trans.?) If one consults Bertram's original text, i.e. what was available to O'Conor and other 18C scholars, one reads:

"Inferino adhuc Clottae ripas accolebant Attacoti (sic), gens toti aliquando olim Britanniae formidanda, maximus hic visitur lacus, cui nomen olim Lyncalidor, ad cujus ostium condita a Romanis urbs Alcluith brevi tempore a Duci Theodosio nomen fortita, qui occupatum a barbaris provinciam recuperaverat." (Copenhagen 1757) p. 31 (= 'Richard I.49').

I translate this: "Lower down [i.e. than the Damnii], towards the banks of the Clotta, dwelt the Attacotti, a people once formidable to all Britain. Here is found a great lake, of which the name was formerly Lyncalidor, at the mouth of which the city of Alcuith was founded by the Romans, and not long afterwards received its name from dux Theodosius, who recovered the province occupied by the barbarians"

The places named are Loch Lomond and Dumbarton [Alcuith in other sources], with an allusion to the R. Leven; i.e. the district on the north bank of the Clyde estuary. There is nothing here of Dal Riata or any other district. Accordingly, to reiterate, post-Bertram scholarship, especially in Scotland, drew the conclusion that the Attacotti were forerunners of the Kingdom of Strathclyde (I can supply numerous examples if you wish). Indeed, on the basis of Bertram's original text, I cannot imagine how any reader, now or then, would have connected the Attacotti with Dal Diata.

Further response to follow. Criticism welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.205.159 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I will await your further comments, and the article is still as you left it. We're using the same versions of Bertram, see English version and Latin version, from the same book.

One concession here - the article said (approximately) "in the region later occupied by Dal Riata", not that the Attacotti were the Dal Riata ... I would favor making that more clear, so as to avoid any implication that a continuous occupation is alleged. Bertram places the Attacotti in that location (or so I have alleged), but does not mention the later Dal Riata.

(parenthetically) I still urge that references to genealogy be dropped, as they are extraneous to this article (and somewhat contentious for some). It looks like a partisan jab (though I doubt that that is the intent), and even if it isn't a gratuitous jab, it still looks like one. It would be equally extraneous (and contentious) to cite all of O'Conors' references to DSB in the great man's bio, for similar reasons.

Perhaps here is part of the disagreement ... the English translation (including the footnotes) are by Bertram and his 18th century correspondents, and not by the 19th century re-publisher. The English translation of a Latin forgery by the forger himself must be considered authoritative per force, in preference to anyone else's translation (after all, he is the one who made it all up). That includes Bertram's "helpful" inclusion of explanatory footnotes. Did you believe that the 19th century editor had provided his own version?

As for the location of the Damnii with regard to the Attacotti, perhaps (or not) some useful information is in the Damnonii article (but fair warning: I wrote that one, too, so take it with a grain of salt).

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. To keep to the points raised: you say "the English translation (including the footnotes) are by Bertram ... must be considered authoritative..." I believe this to be incorrect. The 1809 Eng. translation is by the antiquarian Henry Hatcher, but published anonymously. Hatcher (1777-1848) cannot have known Bertram (d. 1765). The commentary is by Thomas Leman (1751-1826), as acknowledged in the prologue. The printer is Richard Taylor (1781-1858), the publisher John White (fl. 1792-1816). My understanding is that the long-dead Bertram had no connection with this posthumous Eng. translation of his 1757 Latin publication. Any additions and explications belong to Hatcher and Leman. In any case, an 1809 publication cannot have moulded 18C scholarship/opinion. I reiterate that DSB (1757) says nothing of Dal Riata or any district other than (roughly) Dunbartonshire.

Re. refs. to genealogy. I don't really see how these are "contentious" or "partisan", but I have no strong opinion (and certainly have no connection with or animus towards the lineages in question). I reflected that Wikipedia is an Internet resource and that, frankly, the Internet abounds in spurious or unsubstantiated assertions, not least on the theme of genealogy. I thought a carification might alert the unwary or credulous, but if that is not within the remit of Wikipedia I don't by any means insist on the inclusion of this point.

regards, More to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.215.97 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Am interested in your comments on the other items. Thanks for letting the genealogy pass by. For our item-in-progress,

• DSB was available from 1749, was "verified as genuine", then published in 1757 by both Bertram and Stukeley. It was made available for examination between those dates. The translation seems uncontentious (as does the Latin text), though the footnotes may be so (arguing them as later additions). To that point, it is fair to describe DSB's influence as beginning c. 1750, not with the 1809 publication, and that does indeed include DSB's acceptance by scholars such as O'Conor (who cites it in his own writings). Assuming the footnotes (only) are later additions to be ignored, do we have any disagreement on this point?
• Re Dal Riata ... my notice of same location at different times seems valid, but I seem to have been impolitic in that notice, and in the way I presented it ... I can live quite well without a specific mention of Dal Riata in the article, and without an implied connection. Good enough?
• So far, none of this offers any connection of the Attacotti to Ireland (it simply does not refute a connection). And (I think) that also leaves a supposed connection out of the realm of this article (but perhaps merits a "see also" reference to an article where the possible connection is discussed, along with an explanatory note to that effect). Could that be sufficient here?
• To 18th and 19th century scholars regarding a possible Attacotti/Ireland connection ... O'Conor accepted DSB as valid; O'Donovan simply made the connection in passing (he was a scholar, but that is not a scholarly connection); O'Curry (who was O'Donovan's brother-in-law) and Todd denied the connection. If an Attacotti/Ireland connection is to be suggested, is not DSB relevant to any mention of O'Conor on the subject, and are not the denials of O'Curry and Todd also relevant? Or is the connection to be made independent of any of those highly respected Irish scholars, all of whom had an opinion on the topic?

(if I'm being too wordy here, please feel free to promote your points in your own way, I am interested in hearing them). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. There is much here on which we can agree, though a few points require discussion. I must first clarify that I'm really not seeking to push an Irish origin thesis, nor do I have any national sensibilities or any other axes to grind. There are two main points.

1. The role and significance of DSB. As previously stated, there can be no doubt that DSB (1757) exercised a profound and baleful influence over subsequent Scotland-related scholarship. For the following century, and in some cases long after the debunking of DSB, the location of the Attacotti in Strathclyde, and esp. around Dumbarton, became an “idée fixe” of scholarship, ranging from antiquarian and topographical studies to Gibbon’s famous musing on cannibals near Glasgow. I would question, however, whether DSB has much or any relevance to the Irish origin thesis. Or rather, I know of no connection, explicit or implied (please correct me if you know otherwise). Yes, of course, O’Conor knew and cited DSB, and accepted its authenticity, but this is not the point. Does O’Conor ever mention DSB in relation to his linkage of Attacotti – aithechthúatha? Does he ever deploy DSB in this argument? Perhaps more significantly, did O’Conor know DSB when he first proposed this connection? The previous version of the article which I revised read: “In 1753 the influential Charles O’Conor, relying on the fictional information of DSB, asserted...” I assume that 1753 refers to his famous “Dissertations on the Ancient History of Ireland”. I faithfully repeated this in my revision (though, in truth, I’m not certain of the accuracy of this statement). If it is correct, then this dating effectively eliminates DSB from the picture. Yes, DSB was “available” from 1749, but in London and to select cognoscenti. I simply cannot see how O’Conor could have known the work prior its publication in 1757. If this be the case, his Attacotti – aithechthúatha connection must be deemed an independent development, neither inspired by nor linked to the fate of DSB. Yet more problematic is the fact that in one of his lectures O’Curry (1861) refers to the many previous authors who have equated Attacotti and aithechthúatha; he names O’Conor and his correspondent Charles Vallancy, but also John Lynch, alias ‘Gratianus Lucius’ (1599-1673) (I do not have a reference). This tradition appears to long predate DSB in Irish scholarship .

2. The Irish origin thesis and 18/19C Ireland-related scholarship. To reiterate, I’m not seeking to promote an Irish origin thesis. My problem here is more specific. The Irish origin thesis looms very large in the historiography of the Attacotti and it should be explained, with accuracy and neutrality. O’Conor deserves mentioned as the “originator” or at least populariser of the thesis, and because his eminence ensured its propagation. If, however, we are then to catalogue the opinion of every 19C scholar on this point, whether pro or con, that list will be very long indeed, and I see no reason to privilege O’Donnovan, Todd and O’Curry. More to the point, for this generation of scholars Irish historical philology could barely be described as embryonic. It is difficult to exaggerate the degree to which knowledge and understanding of the history of the Irish language were revolutionised from the end of the 19C, largely owing to the efforts of Rudolf Thurneysen (1857-1940), who is considered the father of the modern discipline. In particular, it is important to appreciate that in the 4/5 C AD we are dealing not with Old Irish but with Primitive Irish (of necessity, a largely hypothetical construct). The age of O’Donnovan, Todd and O’Curry knew nothing of these principles, and to cite these scholars in this respect is like citing Galileo as if relevant to an up-to-date discussion of cosmology. A modern, “scientific” (or at least “authoritative”) opinion is required. To my knowledge, the only such statement was by Thurneysen himself: as an aside in a rather obscure article on a largely unrelated theme, he expressed the view that Attacotti – aithechthúatha are unconnected. He hypothethised that the Primitive Irish equivalent to aithechthúatha would be *Ateûiācotōtās, which, in his opinion, is too far removed from the form Attacotti/Atecotti in late Roman sources. Admittedly this is a philologcal game played at a very theoretical level, and the question might benefit from being revisited by a modern expert in Irish historical philology (a rare species), but, on etymological grounds alone, the Irish origin thesis remains to be proved.

2a A new dimension to the Irish origin thesis has recently been opened by Rance (2001). In his attempt to resolve the identity of the Attacotti, Rance avoids arguing from etymology. Rather, he investigates whether the historical and broader literary evidence offers any corroboration to this thesis, in particular in relation to historically-attested Irish raiding and settlement of parts of western Britain, esp. southern Wales. He notes that early medieval Irish and Welsh (British) literature variously report the migration of certain Irish groups who were certainly tributary peoples in this period, namely the Déisi and Uí Liatháin, and who therefore, in some contexts and linguistic registers, would have been classed as “aithechthúatha”. The historical horizons of these population movements are ca. 350-450 (compare Attacotti attested in Roman sources ca. 360s-400). This is by no means proof that Attacotti = aithechthúatha, but it is a new departure and seems to offer relevant circumstantial evidence. I’m not suggesting that the whole argument be rehearsed in the Attacotti entry; you are right, I think, that it belongs elsewhere (perhaps in a separate entry on Irish raiding and migration?), but, I think, it is worth a note of some sort.

Your views? Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.206.115 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks much for your helpful insights and comments; with the most recent ones, I think that we are in agreement here in both content and approach. I'm tied up in something else at the moment, but will return as soon as I can. My apologies for the delay. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hello again, sorry for the delay (real life was intruding), thanks for your patience. Let me know if this sounds good, and I'll change the article accordingly.

• Separate section re DSB, without implications to Ireland (but with notice of its impact on the general telling of history).
• Separate section re Irish connections, to include
  • Subsection on early (ie, pre-20th cen.) Irish connection attempts, diplomatically described, but noting that they do not provide a provenance for modern efforts to connect the Attacotti to Ireland.
  • Separate subsection on modern effort to connect (mentioning Rance), diplomatically described.

I think it will meet with your agreement, but we can still tweak it into shape. Sound good? That said, a few notices:

• Re O'Conor knowing of DSB ... from my readings, I'm relatively confident that he knew its contents early ... DSB was a sensation, and copies of some/most of it were disseminated (it was informal, but its contents were known far beyond the cognoscendi with direct access). DSB has quite a few mentions of Ireland, and O'Conor (and others) were keenly interested in all things Irish. Also, DSB was the primary source for information on ancient Scotland, a matter of Irish interest in general, but also because of the effort to portray Scotland as the font of Gaelic culture (a dispute that O'Conor played a major role in settling) ... speculating now: having heard of DSB's existence, he would have eagerly sought to learn its contents, and in any case, it is hard to believe that this avid and persistent scholar was not aware of DSB's contents until post-1757. O'Conor took great pains to ensure that his telling of history did not conflict with the historical record as he knew it, yet he was certainly aware of the existence of a new historical source relating to Ireland and Scotland (ie, DSB) but continued to write without regard to the greatest historical find of his era? I doubt it. But was that before or after his 1753 work? I think that we don't know.
• Re DSB's location of Attacotti ... the fraud places Damnonii remnants a bit east of the River Leven (saying the Antonine Wall had divided this people), so that leaves the Attacotti in the area of Dumbarton, River Leven, and Loch Lomond only (it was the footnote that extended them to Loch Fyne). I'll replace the map previously used with one that I think will meet with your agreement.
• I was aware of Rance's work, but haven't gone through it in detail (but it's on my future-read list) ... it's heartening to see good efforts come forth, but the topic of ancient "folk-movements" is fraught with unknowability, including the definition of any particular "folk". For example, peoples reorganized themselves from time to time, especially after local disasters, then some years later an earlier conglomeration of different peoples is seen as a single, distinct people. And while there are good and informative efforts (such as by Rance) that leave knowledge in their wake, still I cringe when someone tries to tie conjectural (or worse, speculative) analysis to significant peoples and places in history, as it is often a vehicle for describing conjecture (or speculation) as "truth".

Looking forward to your reply regarding the suggested changes. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The outline and revisions you propose sound fine. One additional point:

• O'Conor and DSB. Today I looked through O'Conor's "Dissertations ..." (1753). I found no reference to DSB, Richard of Cirencester, Bertram etc. Nor is there any mention in the index (surprisingly comprehensive for the period). More worryingly, there is no mention either of Attacotti or aithechthúatha (any spelling). I'm not sure where this leaves the argument, but 1753 does not at least seem to be the correct date for O'Conor's earliest statement on this subject. Perhaps the topic first arose in his correspondence with Vallancy? This of course comfortably postdates DSB, though, unless DSB is explicitly cited in this connection(?), I'm still doubtful of its relevance, esp. given the prior tradition within Irish scholarship of identifying aithechthúatha with Attacotti, e.g. John Lynch.

I look forward to your revision. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.168.39 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Article update

Hello again, Anonymous IP. I've updated the article. Your comments and improvements would be most welcome.

• On the mention of Rance's work in the "modern efforts" section — is this not as vulnerable to Thurseysen's objection to the connection as the earlier efforts to make the connection, notwithstanding the different course that Rance uses to get there?
• I meant only to imply that O'Conor was aware of the contents of DSB prior to 1757, perhaps through a trusted copy of the sections of interest to him; given his love of historical consistency, he would of course not cite DSB without having an authoritative copy . And still, that is my own speculation. I apologize if I caused you to spend time looking a citation.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The article looks good - and your verbal dexterity has carefully evaded the gaps in our knowledge.

• I have made some minor changes, principally : explaining what "aithechthúatha" means. I think it is important to clarify that this is not an ethnonym of a particular tribe but a generic category or class of peoples. For this reason also, in accordance with modern orthography, I have given the term a lower case initial throughout. Also, the phrase "population-group", though undeniable jargon, seeks to avoid "tribe" or "people/s" as potentially inaccurate (e.g. with regard to Irish "migration" to western Britain, all the modern literature agrees that it is not always clear whether we are dealing with the movemements of whole tribes or smaller groups).
• I appreciate your reservations re. Thurneysen and "modern efforts". The chief problem here is that the opinion of Thurneysen, for all his great wisdom, also involves some measure of guesswork (and when the arguments pro and con are both based on conjecture, we should not privilege one side). Of course, when attempting to hypothesize Primitive Irish from Old Irish there are certain guiding principles (e.g. lenition, syncope etc) but *Ateûiācotōtās remains a hypothetical (and slightly imaginative) construct based on the (albeit best) knowledge a century ago. Rance's case does not rely on hypothetical etymology but on the actual (or subsequently alleged) involvement of historically attested tributary groups in Irish raiding and settlement of late/sub Roman Britain. If you are still concerned, however, it might be better to minimise this section somewhat? In my revision I simply had a sentence alerting readers to the issue (very brief summary) and directing them to relevant literature in a footnote and in the "Further Study".

Your comments/improvements welcome. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.189.154 (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Anonymous IP. Your changes are all to the good, and I like your reasons for making them. I think the "modern efforts" section looks fine – it doesn't give undue weight to the thesis, and it needs to have more than a bare mention of its existence. The whole article looks like a reasonable account of what is known, unless we have any items as yet unresolved; and that is a good place to leave it for now, if you agree. I might facilitate access to the citations that I made, which I'll do in time, but that won't affect the article at all. If anything comes to mind in the future, please incorporate it.

This has been a pleasant, productive, and informative collaboration, and I thank you for it. If you wish to make contact on any topic, you can leave a message on my talk page.

Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)