Talk:Silures

"South Walean"

"...South Walean roots..." - I am probably being ignorant, but isn't the correct adjective 'Welsh'?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.16.2 (talk) 16:42, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

I would have to say, that there is no "word" for "people from South Wales". I am Welsh and from South Wales, but I have never heard a way to identify "us" with a designation. So, while I think the writer was trying to be clear, he/she had to coin a neologism - "Walean".

perhaps "Welsh from South Wales" would work, although clumsy, it is clear and avoids the neologism. I relooked at the context, and think that simply saying: "The poet, Henry Vaughan, called himself a "Silurist", by virtue of his roots in South Wales." would be clear and unambiguous. Should I be Bold? haha

human 04:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Google for "south walean" -wikipedia" does bring back a few hits, from such rarefied territories as bbc.co.uk. "south walian" brings back a few hundred more. Being thoroughly Hwntw myself, I've heard "South Walean" here and there, but *never* "South Welsh". Vashti 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the change to "South Welsh" to something we can hopefully all agree on. However, from the Oxford English Dictionary: "Walian, n. and a. A. n. A native or inhabitant of South (or North) Wales. B. adj. (Characteristic) of or pertaining to this region." The entry for "Welsh" is extensive, but does not include the usages pertaining to the region. FWIW: just because you haven't heard a word before doesn't make it a neologism - the OED's example usage is from 1834. Vashti 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

South Walian is the conventional term most commonly used to describe the inhabitants of South Wales and is in fact the only term I've ever come across. I am myself a South Walian. Thomani9 15:30, 2 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.233.158 (talk)

Geographic boundaries of the territory of the Silures

Although I understand the limitations of sources, one description of their territory:

The Silures occupied an area on the north shore of the Bristol Channel and it was this tribe which became the main enemy of Scapula. Their name appears several times in Tacitus, in the road itineraries ¹¹ and on an inscription from Caerwent (RIB 311). There is a hint from Tacitus (Agricola 11) that these people may originally have migrated from Spain by the Atlantic route. Apart from the fact that Caerwent (Venta Silurum) became their capital, there are no indications of the boundaries of their territory. The obvious western and northern boundary is the River Wye, and to the west they faced their neighbours the Demetae of Pembroke and Cardiganshire. The name of the Demetae is given by Ptolemy and was also known to Gildas, ¹² the Briton who wrote a kind of religious tract in the early sixth century; the name survives in the modern Dyfed. Their capital was Carmarthen (Moridunum) and Ptolemy included Loughor (Leucarum) in their territory. The boundary between them and the Silures was, therefore, either the Tame or the Mellte.

Webster, Graham. Rome Against Caratacus : The Roman Campaigns in Britain AD 48-58. London, UK: Routledge, 1993. p 17. L Hamm 07:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All the photos

What's with all the photos of the same thing, all with the same caption? Did someone come back from vacation and decide to use Wikipedia instead of Shutterfly to display his snapshots? Certainly one or two of them would suffice, and only one instance of the caption is needed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries and the map

Exchange below copied from User talk:Ghmyrtle:

Hi. Still not sure how to use this really so many apologies if it's wrong. I made an amendment to the Silures page to state that the tribe would certainly not have been kind enough to respect a border that did not come into being for many hundreds of years later. The "footprint" of the Silures on most maps that seriously attempt to place them, including the one on the mentioned page, has the tribe's footprint into parts of what is now England and generally Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, although some have Avon/Somerset as a small part of the footprint. The same can be said for the other British tribes up to the first century as they would not be constricted by any future borders and it is rather a shame to use on certain pages a map of modern day Wales to show historical data when there are much better maps available but I am not skilled enough to be able to make such changes or suggestions. I hope I haven't caused a problem. regards.

77.89.134.201 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Most of the sources that I've read, such as this one, describe them as a tribe of "south east Wales" - obviously Wales did not exist at the time, but the River Wye certainly did, and was probably primarily a natural barrier, separating different groups, as well as being a trade route. The "boundary" between the Silures and other groups was probably never fixed, fluctuated, and in detail is unknown, though it may be possible to gain some insight from archaeological finds, the shape of hillforts, and so on. The map in the article, showing the current Wales boundary, is useful simply for orientation, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have another source, this, which says of the Silures: "Their eastern boundary was the Wye, and possibly their northern boundary too..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your points are valid and I have seen your contributions throughout wiki which generally prove to be well thought out or referenced. It is difficult to determine accuracy on certain matters without more evidence or source material and agree the natural barriers would have formed some sort of border but to show celtic tribes, or indeed the Welsh, within the borders of a 21st century map I believe is misleading since either the border did not exist or was different from what we have now. I see no harm in including the border as a reference point but to show it as a permanent borderline after which something or someone totally different might exist must be false. I believe that to appreciate the data it would be sensible, as some maps already in Wiki do, is merely overlay the area with modern day boundaries for reference only rather than have tribes, kingdoms, etc stop at a boundary which did not exist in context. Appreciate your views. Regards

77.89.134.201 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree that the areas of the tribes should not be shown with boundaries, and that the modern Wales boundary is useful for reference and orientation. In my view, the map doesn't suggest that the line was a "permanent border" - I've just added to the caption, to make clear that it is shown for reference purposes only. My only query over the map (and it's a minor point which I wouldn't have raised if you hadn't raised it first) is whether the word Silures on the map should be shown, as it now is, extending north-east of the River Wye beyond Hereford. I think it is common ground that their territory extended up to the Wye, over the area which became Ergyng and later Archenfield which is now in Herefordshire and thus England - but it is uncertain whether their territory extended further into Herefordshire or over the Forest of Dean (in Gloucestershire). But all those things are uncertain and unknowable, and I have no real problem with the current map, which was drawn by User:Notuncurious. I'll copy this exchange over to the article talk page, so that editors can comment if they want. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Genetics of the Basque and Welsh

In the paragaph below you mention that: Genetic studies carried out by University College London, Oxford University and the University of California have suggested that most Welsh and Irish Celts share in part (Y-chromosomes, mtDNA) with the Basque people who originated in northern Iberia during the Paleolithic. "But it is still unclear whether the link is specific to the Celts and the Basques, or whether they are both simply the closest surviving relatives of the early population of Europe" [1] [2]

This is no longer to be considered accurate.The R1b1b2 halpotype is only between 4000-8000 years old and is believed to have originated in sothwest Asia.

■Haplogroup R1b1b2 (M269) is observed most frequently in Europe, especially western Europe, but with notable frequency in southwest Asia. R1b1b2 is estimated to have arisen approximately 4,000 to 8,000 years ago in southwest Asia and to have spread into Europe from there. The Atlantic Modal Haplotype, or AMH, is the most common STR haplotype in haplogroup R1b1b2a1a (P310/S129) and most European R1b1b2 belongs to haplogroups R1b1b2a1a1 (U106) or R1b1b2a1a2 (P312/S116).

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

The link between the Basques and the Celtic populations also are not univeraly excepted; From the European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) The place of the Basques in the European Y-chromosome diversity landscape

Quote: Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic( this is no longer excepted by mainstream Geneticists) ancestry common to European populations, nor we find evidence supporting Basques as the focus of major population expansions.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/full/5201482a.html 234aaa (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. I'll remove the bit in doubt. Professorstampede (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Call a Cat a Cat!

When you write from the start: "The Silures were a powerful and warlike tribe of ancient Britain, ..." Who are you? A Roman, a jesuitic Saxon or an illiterate American? You write like a poor churchy or holly joe of primary school! What is this view point to talk as a hoaxer, about old Welsh People? Same the Romans, that I hate, say "PEOPLE" and never tribe (tribe is for the beasts or celts in gang who live in herds or hordes). Your words are stupid; worthy of a disciple formatted or moulded by the fakes copied in casuistic books. Your terms are also silly that this Roland's song is a papal swindle total fiction. How many moron historians are able or competent to write the true of our history? None, who think that a God creates the Planets and the women with a small bone of one Adam (Antic Clown).

First: the Silures was the People of a country very well organized, not a "Tribe or Clique" like Clans of Scottish who was a long time only Celts (from CEL [kil, kel, cal], hidden; a hideout of a criminal, a carcass, a rotten).

Second: they was not especially "Warlike" before the roman's invasion. But when armies from one society of procurers, supporters of slavery, arrive to kill the people of your race and to rape your women, I don't think that you stay like a victim to be a gentle martyr in catholic tales of the masters who want to be the world's rulers.

Third: "ancient Britain", is just a wrong name given by Romans or "Latinofastres", a phonetic mutation of PRYDEIN, PRYD-YNYS (YNI = Energy, vigour; YNYS = Island. See in a Welsh dictionary for the meaning). This name of "Britain" is dated since only the 5th AD, by the members of the Sect of Roma, never by the People of LLoegr or New-LLoegr. So you have to search the real name given before and during the romans really fascist invasions, and to stop to repeat big insults in a total denial of the true history of WALES (from the Welsh verb GALLUS; the GALLI came from GALLIA or the old-LLOEGR [lore, lware], or LLYDAW).

Why the Wikipedist-writers have a so narrow outlook, as they was all educated by priests, who spoke a dead-jargon of a Sect, and so sophists (Jesuits, liars, hoaxers, falsifiers)? The LADIN, LATIN (from the Welsh, LAT, LAD, LADD = Benediction & others meanings; and certainly also from LAZARUS, LAZARET = LEPROUS, the LEPER) a slang-tongue of the 7th century AD, never spoken by any People of this planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.247.37 (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture References?

Does anyone else agree that a popular culture section would be appropriate, particularly regarding the usage of the term "Silurian" in the series, "Doctor Who" to depict a race that is discovered beneath the earth in Wales? Are there other popular cultural references to the Silures that would also warrant mention (if you accept the premise of such a section)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.20.241 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The Silurians in Doctor Who are pretty obviously named after the geologic period and have nothing to do with the ancient British people. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Modern county boundaries referenced in lead?

At present it reads:

The Silures were a powerful and warlike tribe of ancient Britain, occupying approximately the counties of Monmouthshire, Breconshire and Glamorganshire of present day South Wales; and possibly Gloucestershire and Herefordshire of present day England.

A recent change by user:DynGlas has changed it to:

The Silures were a powerful and warlike tribe of ancient Britain, occupying approximately the counties of Gwent, Breconshire and Glamorganshire (Gwent is Welsh for our histiric lands. Gwent has always been used, but this is a rascist issue by this writer who wants to call it Monmouthshire. The English want to rewrite our History...so if you want to continue with this then I will inform the Welsh language commissinor, about this very racist use of the English word Monmouthshire! The Silures lived in Roman occupied county of Gwent, Monmouthshire was only created when the Norman/Saxon language began in the 13 Century.( Torfaen, Newport, Blaena Gwent, Caerphily were all in the Welsh land of Gwent south Wales. Due to Boarder changes by the English Government, who moved and created new boundries did half of the Silurian lands became Monmouthshire of ((South Wales]] and the person writing this is inacurate!!... also on the subject of Llanmelin, if you spoke to Ray Howell you could varify these facts!! and possibly Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Summerset of present day England.

I've reverted this, simply because it dumped a load of editorial content into article space, when it belongs here on the talk: page instead.

Now, some points (and sorry, I've no time to go further at present):

• We're defining their geography in terms of modern counties, that you can find on a current map. This isn't politics, it's giving our readers a simple cross reference.
• Is the early medieval (but post-Roman) Kingdom of Gwent a useful benchmark? It's not a recognisable concept today and it post-dates the Romans, let alone the Silures. However it does supposedly follow some of their same boundaries.
• If we're linking to Monmouthshire, then which is the best target link?
• What was their boundary? If we are placing it incorrectly, then yes, we fix that. We need sources though.
• Finally, Somerset?!

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you were right to revert the other editor. Moving on, I'm not keen on any references to specific counties in the lead, simply because they are well-defined and the area covered by the Silures was not. "South east Wales, and some adjoining areas of what is now England" is the sort of thing that would cover it for me. Not Somerset. There is evidence for a steady transition and continuation from the Silures, via the Roman period {Venta Silurum, etc.), through to Gwent, so it is logical to make that link, which probably needs to be developed further. I have Ray Howell's Searching for the Silures, which is a good book source, and may be able to draw some edits from it in due course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Our purpose is to give modern readers an idea where they were. So is "South east Wales, and some adjoining areas of what is now England" adequate to do this? I'm broadly happy with this, rather than using counties. After all, no-one really understands the boundaries between Monmouth, Gwent and Torfaen these days. Small clarification though - is "England" taken to mean northwards or eastwards? Gloucestershire is a big area and AFAIK, we aren't talking about that much of it. Also, are there any rivers or natural boundaries that mark a border for the Silures and would be understood today? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've realised that this was discussed previously, a few threads up. The Wye (which cuts through modern Herefordshire) was certainly a boundary, but I don't think we can call it the boundary. These things were very fluid at that time anyway, and there is even less information on how far Silurian control extended to the west or north of their core area. Howell describes them as "of south-east Wales", but does not discuss boundaries in any detail, presumably because there is simply not enough evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: How about something like... "...a powerful and warlike tribe of ancient Britain, believed to have occupied lands, now predominantly within south east Wales, west and south of the River Wye." The article text can then expand upon the relationship with later Gwent, broadly in the same area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the rivers aspect. We know the Romans bridged the Usk and the Wye, where the Silures would have had difficulty crossing that low down the river. I'm assuming their boating skills were at most at the coracle level, as for the Demetae. Later, it seems that the Kingdom of Gwent was indeed bordered by these rivers. So where were the Silures? Did they cross the rivers? Were they Foresters? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I simply don't think anyone knows. Some sources show maps with lines indicating the general extent of their territory, but they are indicative rather than definitive. I much prefer maps like the one shown in this article, where the name is shown extending over a vague general area. We don't have the information to be more specific, which is why I'd prefer a general term like "south east Wales". However, it's pretty certain that what is now southern Herefordshire (south of the Wye) was also within their territory - there's no reason to think that the post-C16 England-Wales boundary there applied during the time of the Silures. We don't know whether the people of the Forest of Dean were counted as Silures or not. Bryan Walters' The Archaeology and History of Ancient Dean and the Wye Valley says that "geographically they [the people of Dean] were isolated from the Dobunni, the Silures and the [unnamed] Herefordshire tribe by the Severn, the Wye and the Herefordshire plain...", though coins of the Dobunni have been found in Dean, suggesting trade across the Severn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel

"The Spanish academic Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel hypothesises that..."

It's probably not relevant to mention her nationality, so I've deleted it, but according to German Wikipedia [1] she was born in Milan... Flapdragon (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Roman Tacitus wrote of the Silures

non atrocitate, non clementia mutabatur – the tribe "was changed neither by cruelty nor by clemency".

Was it translated to "But neither sternness nor leniency prevented the Silures from fighting." nowadays? https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Annals_of_Imperial_Rome/bzHAm7wZM-0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT219&printsec=frontcover&dq=Silures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.146.8 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)