This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Herefordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Herefordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Replaced the stub with an article. Took a guess at the appropriate banners. Notuncurious (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting! You state: "Etymologies asserting that Ariconium is the origin of the name of the Celtic-speaking people of the post-Roman kingdom of Ergyng are fanciful. There seems to be a phonetic connection between the names Ariconium and Ergyng, but asserting that Ergyng is a derivative of the name of an abandoned iron working site and minor Roman station lacks credible foundation." Do you have a reference for that view, or is it your own research? There are citations which express a contrary view, such as , , , ... etc. At the very most, I think the article should explain that the derivation of Ergyng and Archenfield from Ariconium is questioned, or doubtful - but I'm not sure what the doubts are, as the sources I've seen, without exception, make a link between them, Ergyng's boundaries later withdrawing to the area west of the Wye which excluded Ariconium. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As a more general point, I'm concerned that most of the references are from the 19th century - they need to be backed up - or refuted - by more recent sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, thanks for the response. Yes, I did consult the links you mention (and quite a few more). None of them do more than make a bare assertion or repeat someone else's bare assertion. I, too, think that there is probably some connection between Ergyng and Ariconium, but I don't know what it is; certainly to assert that the name Ergyng descends from Ariconium ought to have an acceptable provenance (citing reliable sources), which I have not yet seen. The similarity of Ariconium to Viriconium/Uriconium is curious. I also think that Ergyng probably once included the site of Ariconium, but that does not mean that Ergyng is a derivative of Ariconium ... perhaps it's the other way around.
A circumstantial notice (not a refutation) ... all of the information about the site characterises a drudge-work industrial site prior to the Romans, built at a place advantageous for furnaces and not a good defensible location (it's on the side of a hill), and a massive abandoned slag-pile of industrial waste after 360 AD ... hardly a place after which a people would name themselves, or after which they would be named by others. Could people have supposed a significant history because it was huge and overgrown, not knowning that its size was due to industrial waste?
As for using "old sources", note that newer references were also used in the article, and quite a few were left out as adding nothing new. Newer sources are sometimes needed, but not always (though they should be checked, which I did); and when they seem to add little or nothing, I'm inclined to use the more long-standing sources. As for backing them up or refuting them via newer sources, I disagree with the implication that "newer" brings quality ... sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. The quality of the back-up or refutation is of interest, though. There's a lot of garbage out there, new as well as old (eg, some Arthurian stuff, or sites on pre- and post-Roman British history).
Have I eased your concerns? If not, let's collaborate further, or go ahead and adjust the article as you think it should be (I expect that I'll be fine with it). My own interests are in the research and the knowing, and a wikipedia article is a byproduct rather than an objective; I feel that I learned what I could, but I'd be pleased to learn more. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
PS - re my " ... lacks credible foundation." and your question about having a reference for it: its an observation that assertions of the etymological derivation of Ergyng from Ariconium are bare assertions made without any use of reliable sources (repeating someone else's bare assertion does not qualify as a reliable source) ... ie, the assertions are lacking in credible foundation. I hope that qualifies as an observation, rather than as a point of view. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, your changes are to the good, and the final product is an overall improvement. Your efforts and positive results are appreciatively noted. We seem to be everywhere agreeable, and even where we don't agree, we agree nevertheless (we both think "I'm right"). I'll not change your text or references, but will soon fit the citations into the style used elsewhere in the article. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That's good - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)