Talk:Attacotti

Category: Mercenary Unit

I dont think Attacotti should be under the Category of Mercenary Units and Formations. --Khorne25 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Uí Liatháin

NB This article is about the Attacotti. In an effort to resolve the dispute and to prevent the content wandering yet further off topic, I suggest simply deleting the original reference to the Uí Liatháin, together with the subsequent tangential material it has inspired. On reading Rance (2001), you will find that the Uí Liatháin are barely mentioned in passing and are by no means central or crucial to his thesis, which primarily concerns the Déisi (= a generic déisi, not to be confused with the later historical kingdom of Déisi Muman, which did not exist in this period). In this he is in line with T.Ó Cathasigh, "The Déisi and Dyfed", Eigse 20 (1984)1-33. Some of Rance's arguments regarding the involvement (indeed the evolution) of Munster aithechthúatha in the raiding of late Roman/sub-Roman Britain were in fact anticipated by N.T. Patterson in "Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State. The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe", edd. B. Arnold and D. Blair Gibson (Cambridge University Press 1998). Responses welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.19.197 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea. One of my initial thoughts was to delete the reference to the Uí Liatháin but once I got writing well then I had to make it all perfect and comprehensive, all the while being dismissive enough of Rance not to read him because the inclusion was so obviously unresearched. I've now located him at jstor. Perhaps there could be a single line like "Rance includes the Uí Liatháin alongside the déisi but this may be an error and is in any case not central to his thesis". Revolutionary would be for me to finally create an account and give them their own article, and the complicated racial and dynastic assortment that were the so-called Uí Fidgenti could get one too. They and the Uí Liatháin appear to have separated rather late and it looks likely that Crimthand Mór belonged to their kindred, almost surely Dáirine to start with, but later got "reassociated". If he was king before they broke up then Dind Traduí, phonetically similar to Din Draithou, and Dind mac Lethain might be all the same. Do you think you could add a paragraph or two in this article containing Cathasigh and Patterson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.38.209 (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 minor references to the Attacotti in the historical record, so it is easy to formulate a hypothesis connecting them to significant events and other peoples (ie, since there is no additional information about the Attacotti, there will be no evidence that demonstrates that the hypothesis is false). However, this is tangential at best, and irrelevant at worst, to this article's topic. Rather, put the information in its proper place, such as articles on the Déisi or Uí Liatháin.

The material being added looks like good material, but belongs in an article that discusses the thesis of this material, so I would suggest that someone create that article if it does not yet exist. It certainly seems that you are knowledgeable in that area. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that we are in agreement that the Uí Liatháin material I deleted (however good) is best left deleted and/or belongs elsewhere. On the other, minor issues:

• RE: MacNeill 1911/12: I have no objection, but it is old and in parts superseded. In fact, did not MacNeill believe that the Uí Liatháin (as all Uí – formula names) were a much later development? (post 5th C. ?). No matter.
• RE: a suggested brief line on Rance and Uí Liatháin: I have no strong opinion and the wording you suggest is sufficiently neutral. It does strike me, however, that this could perhaps wait until there was a dedicated Uí Liatháin page (and yes, do please go ahead and make one). As you clearly indicated, this is a tortuously complex subject. If I remember correctly (?), Rance was of the opinion (and I don't think it was his own thesis) that the Uí Liatháin (i.e. of the historical kingdom) had tampered with their ("prehistoric") genealogy, elevating their ancestral status and fabricating a link with the Eóganachta in order to disguise their own, in reality, relatively humble origins (an obvious analogy is the literary work "The Expulsion of the Déisi", which manufactured a demonstrably fictive royal lineage and Tara-based prehistory for the historical kingdom of Déisi Muman; and there are many other examples). Whether this is true in the case of the Uí Liatháin, I simply don't know, nor do think it is a matter for this article, but the slim evidence is clearly open to multiple interpretations and we should be very wary of anachronistically retrojecting a later historical status or entity back into a prehistoric or semi-mythical past. I would suggest that until these issues can be sorted out in detail elsewhere (on another page?) the whole question of Uí Liatháin should be omitted here.
• RE: Ó Cathasigh (1984): not especially relevant to this page, but I note he is rightly cited on "Déisi/déisi" page.
• RE: N.T. Patterson (1998) - I agree, she should be mentioned; it is directly relevant to aithechthúatha-Attacotti. The obscurity of the publication means that her paper is poorly known. I will re-read it and see where it would be most appropriately cited/ incorporated.

In any case, can we agree that the tag can now go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.19.197 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created an account and an Uí Liatháin page! Please contribute.

re: The Expulsion of the Déisi. I don't think most would accept Rance's interesting opinion, wherever he got it, that the Uí Liatháin fabricated their pedigree after rising from humble origins, because a) it only links them to the Uí Fidgenti, their universally recognized cousins, and not to the Eóganachta directly, and b) the Eóganachta would seem to have had rather humbler origins than the Dáirine and as far as I know are never mentioned in British sources. They may have been farmers or comparative rabble then for all we know. In the Déisi story the Uí Liatháin are included together with the Uí Fidgenti as a single people, and form part of the I think otherwise unknown "Three Eóganacht of Munster" with the Eóganacht Locha Léin and Raithlind. Byrne thought it worth mentioning, and he also mentions a certain Bressal mac Ailello Thassaig from the Uí Liatháin who may have been king of Munster and later omitted from the lists. Keating mentions another king of Munster from them. Finally there is the matter of the colossal rath they sometimes received from Cashel. Rance caught Eóganachta worship from somebody "in the know" I'll bet, maybe even a would be aristocrat like Terence Francis MacCarthy.

re: Patterson. I look forward to seeing her mentioned.

re: 3 minor references. They were Huns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinDraithou (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Excellent job with new "Uí Liatháin" page - I look forward to its development. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.19.197 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So what happened to poor Patterson? I've discovered that O'Rahilly is probably the culprit btw (chapter IV). British scholars tend to follow him much more than Irish scholars do. There is also an unfortunate middle class tendency to assume only dynasties with lower class origins modify their pedigrees, which reflects the origins of their accusers more than anything. Often it simply makes political sense, and just as often people can't remember where they come from. As far as anyone can tell, the Uí Liatháin were a branch of a larger sub-branch, which included the Uí Fidgenti, of the Dáirine, apparently comital in origin and so just not quite as princely as their cousins the Corcu Loígde. I don't think any real scholar in Ireland believes they were kin to the Déisi. The Corcu Loígde did not actually fall until the 7th century and we can assume the Uí Liatháin did not want to fall with them. Conveniently, they and the Uí Fidgenti begin to be listed among the Eóganachta only a century later. The suggestion that they were of humble origins looks even more absurd when we learn that they had relations with the Connachta and Uí Néill. So Rance has simply been misled. DinDraithou (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello DinDraithou, Rance's article was much-cited as a reference in wikipedia articles until this year, when there seems to have been a reversal. At present, I think he is cited in 2 articles on Irish history and this one. I can't say that I miss the past enthusiasm for his hypothesis (which is to criticize the enthusiasm rather than the hypothesis), and perhaps the Attacotti article could now do with some revision on the modern efforts to connect them to Ireland, to reflect your research, and to be consistent with some of the articles you've started and improved upon (Irish history isn't my main focus, but it isn't exactly off the beaten path, either, so I come across them from time to time – I've been impressed by your efforts). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question, if I may: Is this "N. T. Patterson" the Cattle Lords and Clansmen one? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, Nerys Thomas Patterson. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello DinDraithou. Thank you for reminding me about the Patterson article. I requested this from inter-library loan, but it has never materialised, so I shall give the dept. a nudge. There seems no doubt that Rance followed some Irish scholar/s specifically with regard to the alleged humble origins of the Uí Liatháin; this was not his own thesis. I'm not sure that it was O'Rahilly (or, at least, I recall his disagreement with the latter on some points). I must re-read the piece. In any case, as you previously averred, the Uí Liatháin simply did not belong here. Your outline of their origins and affiliations seems plausible, but, as you are clearly aware, the severe dearth of unquestionable "facts" about the Uí Liatháin before c.750 mean that certainty is a rare commodity (the floating date of "the Rise of the Eóganachta" in recent scholarship being a case in point). I too have been enlightened by your Munster-related articles. Regards.

I agree they don't need to be mentioned in the article. They became dynastic=territorial too early, Nennius referring to them as the "Sons of Liathan", coming into existence well before the rise of the so-called Eóganachta confederacy (vs "race" = Deirgtine), which rose in the 7th century (for which see the articles by David Sproule). Then we have the marriage of Angias to Lóegaire mac Néill. Thus the Uí Liatháin are probably the wrong people to be looking at unless they possibly had a role in orchestrating the movements of the southern Déisi to weaken Romano-British positions. I'm sure someone has already thought of this and might discuss the possibities in a future article. We can assume at least some collusion, shared knowledge or coordination with the ealy Uí Néill given the aformentioned marriage and earlier career of Crimthann mac Fidaig. Maybe I should submit something. What exactly the Deirgtine were up to then is less obvious although Byrne makes the standard case for them. If we follow O'Rahilly and others, they might have been leaving Britain, not raiding there. DinDraithou (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Patterson starts on p. 129 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=eVz2NDNoD3oC. You can preview some of it. DinDraithou (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish connection / Modern efforts

Is it just me, or does this paragraph read that he avoids arguing from etymology before it proceeds to argue from etymology, drawing the same (false) parallel between aithechthúatha and Attacotti? Paul S (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has taken this on board, so I've removed the reference to this article, for which there seemed to be a brief fad among nationalists a few years ago. Paul S (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Attacotti page" from helpdesk

Moved this section from the helpdesk:

The Irish section on the Attacotti page needs to be removed as it supports scientific racism. Please read R.M Douglas' 'The Racialisation of Irishness in Britain' to see that the section stating the Irish to be related to the Attacotti is complete racist slander. Please remove it at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.236.220 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Attacotti article definitely reads like an essay; so I tagged it as such. Not to mention "Weasel words", especially note the following in the lead/lede:

There is no other information available on the Attacotti other than their brief mention in these sources, and based on historical evidence, there is nothing more to be said of them. This article discusses the historical Attacotti of Roman Britain, their likely service in the Roman army as auxilia palatina, and their possible link to Ireland.

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s.: This probably should be moved to the article's talk page ~ but I don't know how that's done.  ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Possible Irish Connection" section contains information on past efforts to connect the Attacotti to Ireland, neither more nor less. Read the section yourself, and see that it does not state that the Irish are related to the Attacotti, contrary to what the anon has said. Whether or not current and past efforts to relate the Attacotti to Ireland are considered racist by the anon's source is a different issue. The section includes cited references (including images from a 1783 book and an 1844 book) by Charles O'Conor and John O'Donovan, two highly respected Irish historians.

For the sake of having a disinterested 3rd party in a discussion where racism is alleged, would someone at the helpdesk comment on this please? I'll be watching this page for the near future. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

[moved]→ As a "disinterested 3rd party" my main concern is that the lead suggests that the remainder of the article is based mainly on speculation. And the purpose of the article seems to be to support some speculative hypothosis.   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello 74.60.29.141, thanks for the feedback. When this was written it was the custom to avoid citations in the lead, with the information in the lead supported by referenced and cited material in the body of the article. There are a couple of {{cn}} tags that I think are justified, but the material in the lead looks to me to be referenced acceptably (though things can certainly be improved). On the other hand, it may well read like an essay, resulting in something that should be improved to meet current wikipedia standards. On that basis, your tag of the article should stay until the article is revised. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{tone}} tag might be more appropriate than the {{essay}}? For one thing, the self-referential statement "This article discusses..." seems out-of-place (outside of a Dab-template) -and an encyclopedic article shouldn't "discuss".  ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think that it reads better without that language in the lead, so I removed it. {{tone}} does seem more applicable than {{essay}}, whichever seems best to you. You can also be bold and have a go at improving the article, if the wording and phrasing are the major issues, but that's not required: it is sufficient simply to note the problem, as you've done. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Tags

I tagged the following with {{syn}} -this might be nit-picky, but it is an obvious synthesis, seems non-encyclopedic to me, and contributes to the essay-like tone. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• The passage then also becomes an accurate description of the preferences of pastoral peoples, such as those who lived in northern Roman Britain at that time.

The changes are making the article better. It's always good to have fresh eyes take a look, nice work. I agree, and removed the offending sentence (and another one that may be of a similar vein). Not sure what to cite in the discussion of Jerome's text ... both the Latin and English translation are cited, and we're talking about the meaning of beheld, which can mean either "saw" or "understood" depending on context and interpretation. Do you have a different take? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that "disagreements" are mentioned, but it is unclear who is doing the disagreeing. Without citations, it comes across as an editorial comment (ironically, editors shouldn't add their own editorializing, at least not on WP). And yes, it already much better - sometimes "less is more".  ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it. There are sources, and they can be cited. One change altered substantive content ("In the fifth and sixth centuries, Primitive Irish was unknown to scholars." doesn't make sense, though "The Primitive Irish used the fifth century was unknown to early scholars" is correct). And yes, less-is-more usually helps ... it can be difficult for a content-editor to have 10 pages of good info and then throw away most of it for the article; even then we seldom throw away enough, and there are sometimes loose strings, such as needed citations; and content-editor is not a synonym for good-writer. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

St. Jerome section - I don't think that this works at all. No one will bounce up and down repeatedly between notes and text, and digesting them requires stopping and thinking ... it's much better if the reader can get through simply, with the citations available if interested, and without all the distracting note references. I think it was better before: present the 3 options with the cited refs that justifies the 3rd one, and don't dissect more than necessary (ie, the originally underlined items are sufficient). Comments? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.  When I did the footnoting, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but afterward, I was unsure.  In a few days I'll (hopefully) be able to devote enough time to convert the information from the sources into prose.  In the meantime, if anybody else wishes to give it a go, then please do!  ~Thanks again, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you'll be revisiting the section after letting things gel for awhile, let's leave it as-is for now. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonder why the text has viderim and the footnote vidirem. And also how the reading inhumanis came into consideration. This would mean to me that all the others eat human flesh and only the Attacotti eat inhuman flesh. Only humanis carnibus vesci is idiomatic. Where do the spellings in the lead come from? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The section is under reconstruction; there might be a few temporary typos. The importance of inhumanis vs. humanis is from cited references and will again be clearer when reconstruction is complete ... the point is central to the question of a transcriber's error (a question long raised by historians but omitted from discussions on cannibalism). The spellings in the lead are noted elsewhere in the article, particularly the "Notitia Dignitatum" section (it is common to try to avoid citations in the lead section when the information is reliably noted later in the article). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fully appreciating that this section is currently in flux, with regard to thesis no. 2B ("humanis" > "inhumanis"): are there other references that can be cited? I mean more recent (and, indeed, more reliable) than Greaves (1879) and Anonymous (1903)? Regards, Pseudoneiros (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pseudoneiros, thanks for the feedback. I would agree with your point in broader interpretive works of history (eg, prefer a modern history of Rome over Gibbons' Decline and Fall), but often 'more recent' does not mean 'more reliable' for a variety of reasons, and here is a case in point. The cited references are discussing a Latin text and English translation, where the Latin text may be corrupted (as most are in part, having been transcribed and "improved upon" many times since the 4th and 5th centuries); and even then there are nuances, such as in where to place modern punctuation and translate idioms). A competent discussion in the 19th century should not be deprecated over a more recent one that covers the same ground unless there is some quantifiable issue of competence. All else equal, I tend to prefer citing references that readers can access rather than citing a book that does not cover new ground, and that few can access (and the revisions to this article are taking place precisely because wikipedians can access the sources of information and did not simply take my word for it).

If you still have reservations, please say so ... they would be welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Notuncurious. Thanks for the response. Of course, I take your point that there is no intrinsic superiority to more recent scholarship. And I am familiar with editing Latin and Greek texts and their textual transmission. My concern here is rather the authority (or, as you put it, competence) of the two references and also their lack of resonance in subsequent literature. Greaves (1873) was a classic nineteenth-century amateur antiquary, who wrote on everything from English legal history to church brasses to tumuli etc. Anonymous (1903) is, well, anonymous. If this hypothesis is to be presented as if or alongside "mainstream" scholarship, is not more than this pair required? Hence my enquiry about more recent literature, which, as far as I can see, shows no inclination to tamper with the received text in this way. This is especially important, given that this hypothesis is, at very best, tenuous. The transcriptional error "inhumanis" > "humanis" is not in itself inconceivable (in either majuscule or minuscule), although there appears to be no codicological basis for such an emendation in this instance. More to the point, adjective "inhumanus" straightforwardly does not mean "not human" or "unhuman" (in the sense of biologically "animal"), but rather "uncivil, ill-bred, savage, barbarous, cruel, inhumane" etc. The textual intervention does not even have the merit of improving the sense of the passage, on the contrary, the sense becomes even more strained - as [[User:Pp.paul.4] implies above, why would anyone refer to "animal" flesh as "not human flesh" (even if "inhumanus" could have this meaning)?. I am not suggesting deletion of this information (it has a historiographic interest), but in the absence of additional authority the degree of prominence to accord a potentially fringe and/or obsolete hypothesis must be open to question. Ultimately, I wonder just how much genuine "controversy" there is here. Regards, Pseudoneiros (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points, Pseudoneiros, and I'm inclined to adopt your argument over my own to a large degree. I should have mentioned earlier that the main thrust of this 3rd division was not the Latin text or translation per se, but how out-of-place the line seems to be in Jerome's text ... innocuous descriptions of diets, then suddenly an ostensibly explosive statement offered matter-of-factly, then Jerome continues as innocuously as before (and Jerome does not even comment on the obviously outrageous—witnessing Attacotti cannibalism—here or elsewhere in his extensive writings).

It appeared in some earlier (18th and 19th century) serious efforts in combination with the spurious De Situ Britanniae (see that section in this article), such as in Gibbons' works (he ponders the possibility of cannibals having lived near Glasgow, where De Situ placed the Attacotti, and his citations regarding Roman Britain cite De Situ). Without support from another legitimate source, a historian would not seriously consider so strange a statement that had been passed through generations of anonymous scribes since the time of St. Jerome. Hence the point that Jerome might have been mis-transcribed at some point. Modern historians tend to ignore it when speaking of historically attested peoples, except in what I might describe as a fringe element that focuses on the weird and salacious.

How about this as a partial solution: we keep the original Latin and translation as it was originally given in the cited sources (before several changes made this month), and they are noted as "flawed", "imperfect", "inaccurate in places" (whichever seems appropriate); or even replace them with your own more accurate cited texts. We are then left with the original question and the original point: inhumanis is in the text that was many times rewritten and it is out-of-place in the passage, which is otherwise an innocuous paragraph stating that people eat what is normally available to them where they live. How does cannibalism fit into that? One possibility is that Jerome was mis-transcribed. The other possibilities are that he saw it and that he understood it. Those are the items covered.

Does that sound reasonable? Looking back, I might have said initially that the Latin and English translation were not the point, and any good citations would work as well; I simply used the versions in the cited text, largely because they were not critical to the point and they are accessible to readers. My mistake, and my apologies. And to further support what you say above, I very much agree that using a good source is better than the alternative. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Notuncurious, for your considered response. I should stress that I have no strong opinion about how this section should be developed in general, other than agreeing with you that the recent reformatting of the text has left it less user-friendly than it was previously. I also share your view that any salacious implications of "cannibals" should be avoided. My specific concern was the presentation of a potentially fringe and/or obsolete hypothesis (Greaves and Anon.) as if it were a mainstream thesis in a current controversy. Arbitrarily emending a text and then assigning the emendation a meaning it simply does not/cannot have is not textual editing but wishful thinking. Unsurprisingly, their hypothesis does not appear to have found favour in subsequent scholarship (indeed, I can find no trace of it). Moreover, all modern critical editions of Jerome’s text print the received reading "humanis vesci carnibus" without any implication or suspicion of corruption. Rather than seeking to make the text say what it does not, I would prefer an approach which sought to contextualise the received text.

I think you are correct to point to the wider context of the passage but, with respect, I disagree somewhat with your reading of Jerome’s purpose. Far from being, as you say, "innocuous descriptions of diets", Jerome supplies a catalogue of diverse and often repulsive dietary customs, followed by (as ever with St. Jerome) shocking sexual/marital irregularities, practised by different peoples in and outside the empire, who are variously said to eat e.g. "fat white worms with blackish heads", locusts, crocodiles, "green lizards", "half raw flesh", wolves, horses etc. This information, which conforms to long-standing Greco-Roman literary and cultural prejudices towards "barbarians", reflects both a traditional Greco-Roman concept of geographical determinism and Jerome's own notions of Divine Providence and Christian self-restraint. Jerome's "eyewitness report" of cannibalism as the final item on this list is not remotely out of place, on the contrary it provides the perfect rhetorical crescendo (which would not be the case with: "I myself, as a young man, saw some Brits eating ... sows udders!" – I can't hear the audience gasping at that). Furthermore, it is important to appreciate that earlier Greco-Roman authors (e.g. Strabo, Diodorus) had also made or reported allegations of cannibalism uniquely of peoples in the British Isles, and especially Ireland. Accordingly, the extremely well-read Jerome is not the first to make this charge against a “gentem Britannicam” and is merely rehearsing yet another ethnographic stereotype in a long list of ethnographic stereotypes, just as the reference to the Scoti sharing wives, which follows immediately afterwards, evokes Caesar's account of polyandry among the ancient Britons (see thus e.g. Freeman (2002) 99-100; Rance (2001) 245-6). Again, I wonder about the degree of genuine and current scholarly "controversy" concerning Jerome's allegation of cannibalism – who is in dispute with whom?

I have perhaps gone on too long. I think the best way to proceed is for you to reconstruct this section as you wish. I note that you are busy (and admirably productive) on other pages and engaged with even more tortuous historical conundra (esp. Anglo-Saxon settlement), and so I will take another look at Attacotti at some time in the future once you've had an opportunity to develop this section (owing to time constraints I am, sadly, an intermittent editor). Best regards, Pseudoneiros (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in error in saying previously that "I'm inclined to adopt your argument over my own to a large degree" ... I pretty much agree with you in every degree. And now that you mention it, I also recall ancient mentions of cannibalism, such as by Strabo, and that I thought at the time that he was pandering to a receptive audience; and that this was common for that era. I didn't mean to suggest that there was 'modern' debate on Jerome's passage (there isn't), though originally I clearly said it and gave that impression. Etc, etc, all ending in agreement with what you've said. I hereby declare that I never said any of it, and that my ugly twin must have gained access to my wikipedia account to write this section :-)

I'll leave things as-is for now, then revise the section in toto ... a mention that cannibalism is in St. Jerome's account, also noting other ancients who mention cannibalism; followed by its use in combination with the spurious De Situ Britanniae (such as Gibbons' Decline and Fall); perhaps followed by some note that modern scholarship does not give it any particular weight.

Many thanks for your cogent and very useful critique and comments, Pseudoneiros! Your attention here is a great help, as is the attention and revisions recently made by the anon IP (aka Eric). My Best Regards to you both, Notuncurious (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Article revised

I think that I've covered the concerns laid out on the talk page, but a further review of the article will point out any deficiencies, and perhaps the need for additional revision. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up my earlier mess and otherwise clarifying cannibalism! The only remaining minor point needing clarification is the use of the term "spurious". Although the article on De Situ Britanniae clearly establishes it as a fraud, it would be good practice to (at least) include a citation justifying the use of terms such as "spurious". ~Thanks again, Anon IP, a.k.a. Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no mess to clean up, only the residue of a profitable discussion amongst yourself, Pseudoneiros, and myself which led to an improved article (which might yet again be improved). "spurious" is a synonym for a fraudulent work, commonly used in reference to false sources of history (google books produces about 4 million hits when you enter the word). Also, enter "define: spurious" at google and get a definition; it's also defined in spurious at Wictionary, so a wikilink to the article might be sufficient. Again, my Best Regards, Eric, and please come back whenever you wish, Notuncurious (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of spurious is clear, what is unclear is the attribution in the article (3x).   I believe articles should be self-contained in the sense that one shouldn't be required to check other linked WP articles to find references verifying information (such as why De Situ Britanniae is considered "spurious", and by whom).   ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I like your reasoning, and I'll add the citation (a bit busy with life at the moment, but I'll get to it in a day or two). Good catch, Eric. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought about adding the following citation, but figured it might be easier to put it here for consideration than to edit this later:

• Poste, Beale (1853). "Book II. Chap. I. Richard of Cirencester". Britannic Researches: or, New Facts and Rectifications of Ancient British History (eBook ed.). J. R. Smith. p. 114. It is most probably entirely spurious but if so it is worked up with such consummate art that it has deceived some eminent historical writers as well as many able antiquaries. {{cite book}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |chapter= at position 1 (help)

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I added the citations. Wex should be cited, of course, and Major's work is also important. Poste is already cited in the De Situ article as one of the writers discussing the debunking. By the way, it looks like the ccel website with St. Jerome's work may be an altered copy of Yonge's 1895 work (they even copied his footnotes). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)