Talk:Commote

Commote

The Welsh word is cwmwd, plural cymydau. Commote is the anglicised word. I'm glad to see that cantref is used on this page rather than the English eqivalent hundred. For consistency and out of respect for the language I feel that this page should be moved to Cwmwd (anybody typing "commote" in Search would still get there). The list of cwmwd names is very misleading as well and needs changing to their standard spelling (Llan Uaes = Llanfaes, Teigyl = Tegeingl, etc.) and links (and pages) provided. If nobody has any objections I propose doing that in the near future. How about a new category whilst we're at it - Medieval Welsh administrative units for instance - which could then incorporate the stuff under cantref? Any thoughts? Enaidmawr 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and since its a couple of months since you suggested it and nobody has objected I'll do it now!--Cynnydd 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-worded the article from around cwmwd rather than commote. Moved the Domesday bit which is about some particular commotes to a seperate section. --Cynnydd 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem being, as mentioned below, WP:USEENGLISH. "Cwmwd" is a great article title at cy.wikipedia.org, though! — LlywelynII 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Commotes

The trouble with transcribing a list, silly spellings and all, from a medieval text, is that if it contains errors, we have to preserve them out of respect for the text. Surely, what people need is a comprehensive, correct (or correctable) list in recognisable orthography. Anyway, there are errors in the list:

• the cwmwdau of Cantref Penfro (not Pembrokeshire!!!!!) are missing
• the cwmwdau of Cantref Pebidiog are given under "Pennbrwc" (sic)
• the cwmwdau of Cantref Rhos are given under "Pebidawc" (or "Pebideawc": which is it?) (sic)
• Cantref Rhos is not listed
• Wartha (actually Gwarthaf) gives a useful link to a place in Germany.

I guess the reason for these errors is that even editors can't make out what it all means, so what chance does the average Wikipedia user have?

Incidentally, the average person among the billion or so people in the English-speaking world, reading an English text, may come across the term "commote" (99% of cases) or "cwmwd" (1% of cases), and will want to look it up in English Wikipedia. So what should the article title be?

A reliable list of commotes would be very useful, and I'd like to edit it so that it points to actual relevant articles. I suspect that the above are transcription errors rather that errors of the Scribe of Hergest. But I'm reluctant to consult the Red Book in order to put it right, when I have the correct information, in legible form, from reliable sources, on my bookshelf. So what am I to do? . . . .LinguisticDemographer 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so this obscure corner of Wikipedia isn't on many people's watchlists! Since making the above bilious comments, for which I apologise, I've had time to think about it, and I think the problem can be resolved, as follows:

• Make a table for each standardized Gwlad
• Have 3 (4) columns in each for Cantref: Standardized Cwmwd name: Name as in the Red Book (if available): Comment column (perhaps)

The names in column 2 can then be wikilinked when articles are available or planned. I'll go ahead and do this if no objections appear in the next few days. . . .LinguisticDemographer 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As an occasional visitor to this "obscure corner" I'd like to add a few comments. Firstly the Red Book of Hergest list is late and therefore doesn't accurately reflect the situation in medieval Wales for most of the period. Secondly, the spellings are sometimes truly bizarre, even by the standards of medieval orthography, so much so that I honestly can't make out some of the names (and I've checked the original - well, second-hand, in J. Gwenogvryn Evans' ed.). Thirdly, relying on this list, valuable document though it is, is rather like relying on a single map of medieval Europe for the geography of the region in the Middle Ages. Some of the names for Gwynedd, for instance, just don't turn up anywhere else and go against the standard divisions and their names. The situation is worse the nearer you get to the border and the south Wales lordships. Over at Welsh wikipedia I've made a start on a list based on a number of sources but even then it's a difficult task and almost impossible for some areas. Cantrefi were subdivided, cymydau disappeared, etc. I've tried to base my listing on the pre-conquest units (as it's easier!), but even then it can be very confusing. Even historians of medieval Wales tend to give up for the border areas of the north-east, for instance, as names vary considerably and definition of boundaries is problematic. This is definitely going to be a long-term project! Enaidmawr 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PS You won't find much on cy:Cwmwd. The main article and list (incomplete) is at cy:Cantrefi a chymydau Cymru. Enaidmawr 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm slogging through the list right now. It seems to me that because the status of these units changed, their boundaries changed, they came and went, and some were just plain mythical, there's never going to be a definitive list: the purpose of the list is so the casual user can roughly identify where a named cwmwd might have been, and its position in a hierarchy, and to provide a set of red-links that can be gradually chiselled away. I also have been puzzling over some of the names which can't be found in texts, but sound vaguely familiar. It has been pointed out that some were actually made up: a cantref with two cwmwdau would be supplemented with a likely-sounding third to make a "triad". Many of the names are clear scribal errors. I'm intrigued by Ystlwyf/Estyrlwyf, which was called Oysterlow by George Owen: I suspect it's nothing to do with either oysters or ostriches. Thanks for the tip about the cy: list - it's very useful. I'll have a draft of my table soon, and I'll ask you to take a look at it. It'll still be work in progress, but hopefully a bit easier to get to grips with. . . . LinguisticDemographer 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the errors in the Dyfed cantrefi, and have created correct redlinks for the cantrefi and cymydau. I shall create articles, complete with maps, for all these shortly. My source for this is mainly Melville Richards Welsh Administrative and Territorial Units, UoWP, 1969. . . .LinguisticDemographer 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to understand

the discussion above about the units being mythical. Surely, by the 11th century at least, there are enough records to reconstruct which areas had lords and who controlled them.

Within the Wikipedia, we should try to get more consistency between this page and cantref, even if it involves arbitrarily establishing a date for the page's schema and just including notes on changes earlier or later in time or, alternatively, having two lists on this page – one giving the Red Book's account and another the actual historical reconstruction. Surely, we can't just accept the Red Book's by itself: it doesn't even mention Arwystli.

Also we should aim for consistency with other pages – Ial lists lords subservient to Powys Fadog for centuries while this page includes that commote with Gwynedd and writes it off as lost to the Normans within the lifetime of the Bastard. Both can't be right. — LlywelynII 00:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)