Talk:Rhwng Gwy a Hafren

Historicity
Where is your evidence that Remfry's viewpoint has not been accepted by Welsh historians. I'd be interested in some examples of the viewpoint being refuted. 62.25.109.195


 * Where is the evidence that Remfry's viewpoint is accepted by Welsh historians? I have no examples of the viewpoint being refuted at hand but the glaring omission of any treatment of Cynllibiwg as a medieval Welsh kingdom by anyone other than Remfry is surely testimony enough. Find me a single reputable Welsh historian who refers to the "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" as a recognised entity. And Rhwng Gwy a Hafren itself was a region and is always referred to as such. When an exceptional claim like this is made it is up to its proponent(s) to provide the proof, the absence of any such proof being evidence enough. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think that Welsh historians up to now have tended to ignore the various "kingdoms" of the East Central March - Maelienydd, Elfael etc, for example Hywel ap Goronwy doesn't get much of a look in, although he did seem to be a pretty important figure in the late 11C early 12C. In the same way Madog ab Idnerth and his sons hardly gets mentioned although their contribution to the battle of Aberteifi, a battle which seems to have set the linguistic frontier down to the present day, was pretty substantial. So East Central Wales hasn't really received the attention it deserves from historians who are fixated on Gwynedd and Deheubarth. Of course the rulers of ECW all seem to claim descent from Elystan Glodrydd - whoever he was - and now Remfry (who by the way seems to be a perfectly respectable historian) is putting forward this notion of Cynllibiwg - the fact that historians have not mentioned it before doesn't seem to be of much consequence since it's so new - a refutation of Remfry would be of consequence but at the moment no-one seems to have done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not just contemporary Welsh historians who ignore the "kingdom" of Cynllibiwg. It seems rather odd that it is not mentioned a single time in the Brut y Tywysogion or any other contemporary Welsh source. Remfry bases his "notion of Cynllibiwg" on a couple of vague possible references to the name which do not however refer to it as a kingdom. Even allowing for the unprovable possibility of an early proto-kingdom, the evidence for a medieval kingdom of Cynllibiwg is non-existent. It is pure hypothesis. Remfry pads out his argument with references to the local lords of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren presented as if they were the rulers of an entity called Cynllibiwg, but where is the evidence for that? I can find none, and this is the overwhelming majority view. Basically, this "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" is Remfry's theory. With all due respect to him, it remains at present a theory proposed by a minority of two. The Cynllibiwg article describes the events of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's reign in the Rhwng Gwy a Hafren area, for instance, as if they were part of the history of the "kingdom of Cynllibiwg". J. Beverley Smith's extremely detailed account of Llywelyn's reign (Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Tywysog Cymru, University of Wales Press, 1986) goes into great detail about those events and yet does not mention the supposed "kingdom" in all its 450 pages. My sole concern here is with veracity and verifiability and distinguishing fact from theory. The "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" is a theory based on the flimsiest of evidence and should not be presented in an encyclopedia as if it were a proven fact. Enaidmawr (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is one of the status of Cynllibiwg. My guess is that it was a minor polity, which was only semi-independent, being subject in some degree to one or other of the adjoining kingdoms.  I suspect we are almost as ignorant as to the doings of the rulers of Brychwieniog and Gwent in this period.  This is a period when not every polity is likely to have enjoyed full sovereignty, but that does not prevent it being a polity with some status.  The name seems to be a cymrised (if there is such a word) of words that do appear in English sources.  The truth is that there are virtually no sources, positive or negative, so that conclusions must be drawn from what little there is.
 * To me the question is what to do with the two articles. Should they not be merged?  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Thanks for the feedback. I'd almost forgotten about this. I tend to agree they should be merged with Cynllibiwg going into Rhwng Gwy a Hafren (redirect Cynllibiwg there). Practically all the historical data in the Cynllibiwg article is extrapolated from the history of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren and applied to the theoretical kingdom. I think I've already said enough on the argument about the validity of Remfry's theory; it is unproven and probably unprovable. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but this is an encyclopedia and so has to deal in accepted facts. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge. I would suggest that the resultant article should have a section on the uncontroversial history of the area - its princes and theri descents, and a separate section dealing with the issue of Cynllibiwg.
 * Some years ago, I looked into the generalogies of several minor dynasties in the area, all of which went back to a common ancestor Tegonwy, who must have lived about AD 800. From him descended the dynasties of Powys, Gwerthyrnion, Arwyystli, and Cydewain.  Powys split from the others on Tegonwy's death, and Gwerthyrion a generation later, but Arwystli and Cydewain split 8 generations later in the late 11th century.  This does not include Maelienydd and Elfael which would presumably be a separate polity.  This all came from genealogies published by Bartrum, but that is about as much as I can say.
 * Do I detect a personal name Cynllibi in Cynllibiwg. If so, do we have any idea who he was and when he lived? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. The second paragraph in the Rhwng Gwy a Hafren article is about Cynllibiwg so there is already a basis for that section. You ask about the etymology of Cynllibiwg. I know of no person called Cynllib (as the name would be). Indeed one of the problems with Cynllibiwg is that it draws pretty much a complete blank in any book on medieval Wales - and I have a good library, including medieval Welsh literature - apart from Remfry's work. That's the nub of the problem. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru gives nothing that might be directly related to the names Cynllibiwg/Cynllib. One of the meanings of cyn- is "foremost, first, chief, etc", but the nearest to llib is llibin/llibyn meaning "soft, flaccid, meandering, etc etc", which rather suggests that Cynllibiwg is a purely geographical name (to do with the lay of the land; river(s)?). So that too seems a dead end, and anyway would be classed as Original Research without a published source. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all so tedious. The word "Cynllibiwg" is an invention of Remfry. It is an intelligent invention which takes into account the variations of the early medieval names for the realm, of which there are three, and considers common elements in those three names. Looking up parts of the modern name in online Welsh dictionaries will not get you anywhere; their vocabulary is far too small and they cannot handle mutations or multiple short words merged into one. The existance of this realm is asserted in a published source by Remfry, a qualified, serious academic. The `rediscovery' of Cynllibiwg, as Remfry states, was the achievement of an independent Herefordshire-based historian (Bruce Coplestone-Crow) during the 1980s. As Remfry states this historian noticed that a number of variants of the name existed in documents dating from the 9th to the 13th century, all referring to the same broad area. His argument is reasonable and it is a published source from a qualified writer. Enaidmawr, you probably know of no-one called "Cynllib" because you live in the United States. The etymology of Welsh names is extremely complicated (even for Welsh speakers) because there are genitive mutations all over the place as well as substantial changes in the way words have been constructed since the 11th Century that renders any attempt to translate using online dictionaries totally pointless. The fact that something is new research does not mean it isn't valid research; if we were all of that view then I think the world would still be flat! Similarly, arguments that seem to start from the principle that if something has not already been discovered then it isn't so are equally misguided.


 * Finally the list of authors (cited for Ref 10) in whose work the name "Cynllibiwg" does not appear mainly consists of books covering a later historical period than the time this realm is presumed to have existed. It should also be noted that the books covering the period where the kingdom is supposed to have existed were published before Remfry's research, and given that he was the academic who did the research we are not going to be able to put "Cynllibiwg" in any of those books, unless you are Marty McFly.James Frankcom 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * James, I'm afraid you've gotten a number of things very wrong. First, note that a good bit more discussion has occured since the comments you're responding to were made (May 2008), here and at Talk:Cynllibiwg, and many of your points have been covered. Second, Remfry did not invent the form "Cynllibiwg", it is used in many prior works, such as Wendy Davis' 1982 Wales in the Early Middle Ages. It seems to be a modernized cambrification of the Latin Cinlipiuc, which appears in the 9th-century Historia Brittonum. Third, while Remfry is correctly identified as a historian, he is not an academic. He has no doctorate and is not employed at a college or university. He has a master's degree and humbly self-identifies as an "independent historian"; he largely self publishes his writings or publishes in small, non-university and non-academic presses. As such, while his ideas may be appropriate to include in some cases (ie, when he publishes in a reliable journal, or when his works are cited by a reliable authority), it is not appropriate to give them as much consideration as they were receiving. Fourth, you are very wrong about Enaidmawr. He is not an American, he is Welsh, and a native Welsh speaker. It is extremely presumptive for you to lecture him on his native language. However, I agree that it's not good practice to list off a bunch of works that don't mention Cynllibiwg as evidence against Remfry's theory. But it is the compromise for including it at all. Since it is a new, largely unaccepted theory, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of pushing new and unaccepted theories, we must include the caveat about it.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies to Enaidmawr. I have made a stupid mistake, not checked his user page, and confused him with someone else who does live in America...I have conferred with Enaidmawr quite a lot and it is a silly mistake to make, very sorry. Regarding the translation, perhaps the "cyn" part of the name is related to the brythonic "cuno" as in "hound"...only a thought. I hope he will forgive me. My main point about the list of books given is that it is not a very good list to give, because a lot of them don't cover the relevant historic period and the others were published before these relatively recent theories were first espoused.James Frankcom 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce Copplestone-Crow produced a volume with a title something like Place-names of Herefordshire if Cynllibiwg came from his work this is certainly an authoritatove source, as is Wendy Davis, Wales in the Early Middle Ages. Can we get precise citations for this into this article and Cynllibiwg.  That spelling is no doubt a reconstruction, but it is the best that we have.  Earlier in this very long thread, I voted for merging.  I no longer support that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Map
The map recently uploaded places "Rhwng Gwy a Hafren" straddling the modern English border. While I believe the term refers to land between Wye and Severn, it only relates to Welsh petty kingdoms etc in that area. It cannot refer to land east of Offa's Dyke, which was the border at Domesday book and before, and would not refer to those marcher Lordships incormporated into Shropshire and Herefordshire because they were marcher lordships not Welsh kingdoms. the present map needs to be deleted and a more satisfactory version uploaded. My understanding is that Rhwng was essentially Rednorshire and south Montgomeryshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Peterkingiron, thanks for the comments. I think you're correct, and can only suggest that my ugly twin made the mistake while I wasn't looking. The data used was from Lloyd's History of Wales, but the placement was my own effort. I'll upload a replacement image shortly. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel sure that no malice was intended. I would suggest that you try to fill the space between the English border, the Wye and the Severn.  There might be room for arguing about the precise boundary with Saxon England, but that would do very well.  I think that your problem was probably with the space required for so much text.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * REvised map deals with my objections very well. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nov 2009 map
(moved discussion below to its own section from the preceding section, as that discussion refers to a map from last year, not the current one)

I'm not sure about leaving the area to the east completely unmarked - could Offa's Dyke be added perhaps? More pertinently, the names in the south east corner don't look right. Essentially Gwent was divided into three parts, Gwent Is Coed, Gwent Uwch Coed, and Ergyng. The last of those was basically south of the Wye, north of Gwent Uwch Coed, and for the other two the word Gwent should be added. Haven't checked elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding Offa's Dyke sounds good, will do. The material on the map was taken from the named sources, primarily Lloyd's description of the cantrefi. I tried to be accurate but may have missed a few things plodding through all of the text, and will re-check. Will add 'Gwent' to the names (don't recall it in Lloyd, but he may have just assumed it would be understood). For Ergyng, I think that recovery must have been a 'lost cause' by mid-medieval times, with Uwch Coed still claiming (if not occupying) parts of it, and still claiming Ewyas as well. Will re-check Lloyd and others to see if I've missed something. By the way, cantref boundaries are shown in unobtrusive thin/white lines (click image to enlarge and see them; didn't want them to overshadow other details).


 * Will give you some time to do the other checks that you wanted to do. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lloyd has "Gwent Uwchcoed" and "Gwent Iscoed" in his text. The cantref boundaries shown here are from Koch, who has northern Ergyng/Archenfield as a part of England, while southern Archenfield is called Ergyng but is given as a cwmwd of Uwch Coed. Looks like a matter of picking the timeframe to represent, the earlier one where Ergyng was a cantref/former kingdom, or the later one where it was a cwmwd. The map in the wikipedia article is aimed towards later medieval, so perhaps leave it as-is? Input welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I wasn't planning to do any other checks by the way.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fferreg
Do we know anything about a place of that name? It's mentioned as a 5th century "kingdom" in unreliable sources like this, and there is now an article on Russian WP about it, linking to this page (and presumably based on those unreliable sources) - but do we have any reliable information about its existence or non-existence? Should it not be mentioned somewhere? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a place called Fferreg in Cantref Buellt. It is mentioned as Rhos Fferreg in this old topographical dictionary, and is also called Rhosferig. Supposedly Elystan Glodrydd conquered this area in the 10th century and became "Prince of Fferreg". It seems highly doubtful that it was a "kingdom" in the 5th century. Notably, Elystan's traditional area was the Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, but Fferreg wasn't between the Gwy and Hafren, though earlybritishkingdoms.com claims that "Fferreg" was an earlier name for Rhwng Gwy ag Hafren. The site appears to be characteristically wrong about every traceable detail.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, except that the source you give states: "Ferreg, or Ferlex, a Territory noticed in the ancient Welsh Histories, was that extent of Country which lies between the rivers Wye and Severn; and was governed by its own Reguli who also possessed a considerable portion of Brycheiniog, or, Brecknockshire as it is now named" (my emphasis) - and then mentions Rhos Fferreg as being on the opposite side of the Wye. So, it suggests that Fferreg and Rhos Fferreg are not the same place, though the latter takes its name from the former.  I suggest that we could mention the idea that Fferreg was a territory that existed within the area - but no more than that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Yes, it looks like Rhosferig/Rhos Fferrig was the location in Buellt; Fferrig was between the Wye and Severn. Here is a passage from Lloyd on the subject. He notes that according to Thomas Price, "Fferreg", "Fferllys" etc. were corruptions of Fferyllwg or Fferllwg. He further notes that while some people think Fferllys referred to the entire area between the Wye and Severn, Price himself thought it initially referred to a specific part of the region (the Forest of Dean). It may be worth a mention in the article, though I'd like to see more recent sources used.
 * And of course I've found no evidence that it was a "kingdom" in the 5th century.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a short mention might be in order, but I'm happy to leave it to you. The Forest of Dean reference is interesting - if you can point me to any reliable sources covering the history of that area between the Romans and Saxons I'd be interested.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll add something in shortly using Lloyd. He's a good place to start, but I'll try to see what else I can find that's more recent.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I seem to have gotten my bookmarks confused. The Lloyd above isn't John Edward Lloyd, it's Jacob Youde William Lloyd. I'm not sure how useful that book will be. I'll certainly try to find something more up-to-date before making any changes.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not being a Welsh speaker, I find it difficult to participate in this debate. However, the question is really where Price got the word from. The problem is that we know so very little about the area between the Severn and the Wye before (say) 1000, that everthing is highly speculative. Elystan Glodrydd stands at the heads of the princely genealogies for Maelienydd and Elfael, which suggests that he ruled both (probably as a regulus) and possibly under Mercian suzerainty. However, we seem to have no idea what the entirety was called. Where did the old historians find the name Fferreg of Ferlex? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)