Question (on Goidillic units and names)

[Riadach]

it seems youve gone from simply trying to help us to wanting to stir up a reaction from us....

I do not. I merely wanted to point this out. However, considering the reaction from many posters, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.

[Lowenklee]

Please take the following at face value, I don't wish to be percieved as "flaming" or "trolling"...

I wish to pose what I believe to be a fair question. Is it the best sort of practice to cite unpublished work that has yet to be subjected to peer review. It's frustrating not being able to access and scrutinize the material oneself and possibly a failing to rely so heavily on unqualified literary work. After all, Ranika is no longer with the team and able to offer further information pertaining to this literature correct?

I really would love to take a peek at that source material...although without a translation I suppose I'd get only limited use of it. However any information at all regarding the location of this literature, a name associated with it's handling, or at the very least a cross reference of some sort I think should seem reasonable.

On the other hand I suppose the EB team is under no real obligation to adhere to such a protocol and have every right to make that investment of faith in Ranika's research. Perhaps a disclaimer on the material might be appropriate? Moving on...

While changing units at this juncture would no doubt prove unpalatable to the EB team a change of unit names and splash screen quotes might be more doable and hence make this thread a more worthwhile debate in that direction?

My humble opinion is offered only as I myself have wondered often about the the "Cycle of Don" and ect...no insult or distasteful inferences are intended.

[Frostwulf]

[/quote=Riadach]I do not. I merely wanted to point this out. However, considering the reaction from many posters, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.[/quote]
You didn't waste your time. Your presentation may have put off some but your information was welcome. I have to admit one item that puts me off as well is that information is not very forthcoming, and understandably so in some instances. I know the EB team has been busy and do not have time to spend here on the forums. I do wish that they would address some of the items that keep popping up such as the Gaesatae and put down the resources they have. Like you Riadach there are many who do have access to materials so I do have a problem with the "hard to get material" reply.
I hope you will consider to continue posting and perhaps answer questions that others may have. I personally hope you will be able to back up your answers with references, I try to do the same.

[Riadach]

Well the problem may lie in that fact that the Irish historical community and archaeological community, chooses to ignore mythology and legendary sources for an understanding of early Irish military, something I have come across when studied for my current thesis. Such caution may be welcome, as for example when you read carpat serrda, a scythed chariot you have to wonder, is the author referring to something in his own experience, or is he familiar with Roman and Greek historical translations such as Togail na Trai(the sack of troy) or In Cath Cathardha(Lucan's Bellum Civile). Even if it is true that it is his own experience, one cannot necessary project it back 800 years. Although frequently called mythology, the original versions are in fact literature. The Táin Bó Cúalnge for example seems to be a recension of the Táin Bó Fraích from the 7th century (plagiarism was not a problem for Irish monks), replaced their main character Fraech with Cú Chulainn, and ouila, we have one of the most important epics in Irish literature.

I will try to add more if possible. The carbad serrda shouldn't be too difficult to source, and there is a reference to a blanket on the horse which had metal patches sewn in for protection. That last one may be problematic, I think it's the same source, but I will need to research it, and hopefully occurs where the scythed chariot is described in the Táin. www.ucc.ie/celt has many historical epics published and translated and accessible. Also http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeology/chariot.htm

[Riadach]

found it, second paragraph here http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T301035/text021.html

[Urnamma]

As far as I am aware, there are no tracts left to be translated in Irish, excpt perhaps some obscure legalistic poetry from the 6th century. It however seems unlikely as the names used do not conform to grammar. One character was call telam Uí Manawydan. Any one with any understanding of Irish would understand that A manawydan is a welsh name, not an Irish one and B Uí is the genitive and plural form of Ua and does not occur in one individuals name. Anyone truly translating a tract would have no difficulty understanding this. In fact most 6th year students of Irish would understand it too. It leaves me to think that those aren't as proficient as they say the were.

As for archeological finds, perhaps you are correct. I haven't heard of any hammer warriors though, though in the Lebor Gabála(it's a real book i promise you) when one of the TDD meet the firbolg they remark on their spears(craísech MIr, craoiseach Mod.Ir) which they use for smashing and breaking as opposed to the TDD whose spears were used for cutting and slicing. But the name is way off. As regards Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha, it's source is non-existant, and ceannlann does not mean fish scales. It would mean headscale/blade.

I'll state from the get-go that I am no linguist (though I could fairly claim to be a philologist, if I were inclined to do so), and I cannot comment one way or the other on your claims in that area, aside from a small point.

To reiterate, I am no expert on language from that area, but you are very mistaken when you say there is nothing left to translate. When I studied at Harvard for a summer, their Celtic Languages and Literatures dept had several manuscripts actively being worked on. That's just at one place. No offense, but your awareness may be a bit narrow, as I know of people at University College Cork who're also working on texts.

As to the Uachtarach, the archaeological source is quite real, at least the armor anyway. A segment of composite scale (akin to the later Roman Plumata) was pulled out of a bog in what had been Ivernis. Use of all-iron javelins is similarly attested, as remains have been found as far north as Connaught. Long spear hafts are well attested too.

Most of the other units have very much in-period equipment for that area, judging from bog finds and actual weapon counts. 'Archaeology' hardly ever uses mythology, as we're concerned largely with hard physical evidence, which is certainly present in the case of the equipment.

As far as things being in private collections... This is even worse of a problem today, as archaeological looting and theft is even more prevalent today than it was then. Many of us who study ancient economics have basically had to beg to get tiny pieces of pots in order to try to derive their previous contents, to speak only of pottery. Literally thousands of texts remain untranslated, and in what I do (Hittites and Assyrians) over 70% are just sitting waiting for the dwindling number of people who can read them to do so.

The names though, can you explain to me how they're ungrammatical? Keep in mind, I do have a lot of experience with language and formal structure, so I'm really interested in the, to use a vulgate expression, nitty gritty of what you're talking about.

[Riadach]

The assumption within the names given urmama, is that the adjective precedes the noun, when in fact the reverse is true. A rather basic mistake do you not think? A similar mistake is made with luachmharleanbhan. Indeed luachmhar is modern Irish word as luach comes from early modern Irish lógh, meaning value or price. In MIr or Oir this would have been represented as Lóg, hence lóg n-enech, honour price. Luachmhar would not represent precious is the sense that children are precious but rather in the sense that gems are precious or valuable.

As well as that, many of the names mentioned in the cycle of don or dyrma, have names which do not conform to Irish orthography. For example there is no y in Irish, in fact the only gaelic language in which it occurs is manx. There are no k's, indeed names do not begin with H's except for certain grammatical reasons (possesive or genitive), so a name beginning h would not be found in the nominative. Hence Hannon could not be an Irish name. I also remember a Cuinn, Cuinn is the genitive of Conn and is not to be found in the nominative as Conn, all translators would know that.

The argument wasn't necessarily that all legendary prose tracts have been translated, although I still believe they have, but rather that a whole cycle of literature could be completely untranslated. Old Irish is less obscure than Hittite and Assyrian, therefore there is much less guesswork involved. As far as I am aware, sterling work has been done over the past 100 years, and all that is left to translate is obscure judicial tracts, and 500 dán díreach (metrical based later-medieval poems, one of which I hope to translate for my thesis). But if there is one, even if it's unpublished, it will be catalogued either under RIA, TCD, UCD or indeed Bodleian library Oxford. It would first be listed as a collection before it could be translated and published. Does anyone have this information in regards to these alleged tracts.

As for the composite armour reference, I am quite interested in such, and if you could provide further reference to it, (its site, location, archaeologists involved) I could see if I could garner more information from the archaeology wing of TCD. If indeed it is published, I do try to keep up to date with the JRSAI, the RIA and the Irish sword, and am surprised no mention, even in passing, has been made of it. However, ceannlann (head-armour or head-blade?) does not mean what it has been asserted. (in fact the ea gliding vowel, does not really occur in writing until the 15th century in Irish writing, mod ir ceann was rendered cenn, peann pen scéal sgél etc), and likewise for leanbhan above.

[paullus]

"annon" with a prefix has several Galatian parallels, so perhaps Hannon is mainland Celtic?

[Riadach]

"annon" with a prefix has several Galatian parallels, so perhaps Hannon is mainland Celtic?

But why would a mainland celtic word be in an Irish cycle more than 800 years presumably after the former became extinct? If it was annon, or annan, I probably could stretch to believe it, but even then there are way to many other errors.

[Urnamma]

The assumption within the names given urmama, is that the adjective precedes the noun, when in fact the reverse is true. A rather basic mistake do you not think? A similar mistake is made with luachmharleanbhan. Indeed luachmhar is modern Irish word as luach comes from early modern Irish lógh, meaning value or price. In MIr or Oir this would have been represented as Lóg, hence lóg n-enech, honour price. Luachmhar would not represent precious is the sense that children are precious but rather in the sense that gems are precious or valuable.

As well as that, many of the names mentioned in the cycle of don or dyrma, have names which do not conform to Irish orthography. For example there is no y in Irish, in fact the only gaelic language in which it occurs is manx. There are no k's, indeed names do not begin with H's except for certain grammatical reasons (possesive or genitive), so a name beginning h would not be found in the nominative. Hence Hannon could not be an Irish name. I also remember a Cuinn, Cuinn is the genitive of Conn and is not to be found in the nominative as Conn, all translators would know that.

The argument wasn't necessarily that all legendary prose tracts have been translated, although I still believe they have, but rather that a whole cycle of literature could be completely untranslated. Old Irish is less obscure than Hittite and Assyrian, therefore there is much less guesswork involved. As far as I am aware, sterling work has been done over the past 100 years, and all that is left to translate is obscure judicial tracts, and 500 dán díreach (metrical based later-medieval poems, one of which I hope to translate for my thesis). But if there is one, even if it's unpublished, it will be catalogued either under RIA, TCD, UCD or indeed Bodleian library Oxford. It would first be listed as a collection before it could be translated and published. Does anyone have this information in regards to these alleged tracts.

As for the composite armour reference, I am quite interested in such, and if you could provide further reference to it, (its site, location, archaeologists involved) I could see if I could garner more information from the archaeology wing of TCD. If indeed it is published, I do try to keep up to date with the JRSAI, the RIA and the Irish sword, and am surprised no mention, even in passing, has been made of it. However, ceannlann (head-armour or head-blade?) does not mean what it has been asserted. (in fact the ea gliding vowel, does not really occur until the 15th century in Irish writing, mod ir ceann was rendered cenn, peann pen scéal sgél etc)

I will look into getting Archive numbers for the materiel.

Our celtic guys have gone on record as saying the language was 'quick and dirty' and 'temporary' till a permanent solution could be found. That, I think, should be emphasized.

As to the scale, the find was in 1993, and it should be in the National Museum in Dublin, albeit locked storage somewhere (as I'm sure you're aware most military finds are anywhere... there's not enough professionals who actually study arms and armor for the ancient period...). I will find the name of the fellow who pulled it. I know he was at one time on the bard of directors of IAI, but that's not of much help.

An extra note: the armor in question actually has smaller scales than what is on our depiction. This is 'artistic necessity', largely because the 'real' armor would have scales too small to be seen by the player, and would look like a bronze shirt, which would be rather odd. Terminologically speaking, do you know what I mean when I say composite?

[Riadach]

Well I do remember seeing iron age ringed armour in the national museum in Dublin, but I wouldn't have described it as composite. I haven't heard of this composite find at all, though naturally my insight into archaeology is limited.

My issue however was not just with the names given, but the so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted for anything else.

[Urnamma]

Well I do remember seeing iron age ringed armour in the national museum in Dublin, but I wouldn't described it as composite.

My issue however was not just with the names given, but the so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted.

It really depends, I suppose. While I agree in principle (I'd nail someone to the wall for having a bogus source in academia), this is a game, so if they found something someone else had fabricated and passed it along after a quick glance... that happens. Hell, I've done it, and it used to be reflected in a Ptolemaic unit before we decided to just drop said unit :-)

I'll note that the person who cited many things is no longer around (as has been mentioned), and thus cannot comment substantively. There is somewhat of a caveat there as well though. Look at Stephen Ambrose, who did some disreputable things, but also contributed greatly to scholarship in his area. In no way am I implying that is the case here (as I do not know anything about the source material other than the archaeological minuitae).

Still, I think your tone could be a tad less accusatory, and you would see less negative reaction. Let's look at this, and see if we can't find where this stuff is. It would seem rather industrious and counter-intuitive to fabricate so much, wouldn't it?

[Urnamma]

Well I do remember seeing iron age ringed armour in the national museum in Dublin, but I wouldn't have described it as composite. I haven't heard of this composite find at all, though naturally my insight into archaeology is limited.

My issue however was not just with the names given, but the so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted for anything else.

When I say find, I do not mean a whole suit of armor, but rather fragments. And by composite, I mean layered. In this case, scale over mail (probably with cloth or leather in between, one presumes).

The finds in Iberia of this sort of armor are legion, about five or six to date, including a partial suit. A full suit of Roman plumata made in what we would call Galicia today is the most complete, I think. There may be a piece found in Greece dateable to the Galatian invasions as well, but that may be a false positive, as the pottery found near it is conflicting.

[Riadach]

Still, I think your tone could be a tad less accusatory, and you would see less negative reaction. Let's look at this, and see if we can't find where this stuff is. It would seem rather industrious and counter-intuitive to fabricate so much, wouldn't it?

.

Well i do apologise for my tone, but i did feel rather outraged that a mod dedicated to historical accuracy had been so duped. I'm sure you would feel if you saw an inaccurate representation of a culture you were interested in. Perhaps Ran had done what he felt was right by refusing to let early goidilic history be ignored through ignorance, but at the same time there were so many sources that would have been easy to quote that he could have resourced.

I have actually done a bit of linguistic research since the start of this conversation into this composite scale armour. I always knew that the Irish for mail or breastplate was lúirech, from lorica, but was unaware that the lorica could be lorica plumate, squamata or lorica hamata. So where i've read lúirech I've presumed mail, indeed the references to fiuga, and bian and dual would verify that assumption. There is however also a reference dar lannaibh na lúirech, over the plates of the armour, so that is not an impossibility, that some of these lúirigh were lorica plumata as opposed to lorica hamata.

[Thaatu]

Well i do apologise for my tone, but i did feel rather outraged that a mod dedicated to historical accuracy had been so duped. I'm sure you would feel if you saw an inaccurate representation of a culture you were interested in. Perhaps Ran had done what he felt was right by refusing to let early goidilic history be ignored through ignorance, but at the same time there were so many sources that would have been easy to quote that he could have resourced.

Seriously, if you don't want this to heat up again, stop stating it as a fact that the team member was wrong, or worse, intentionally lying. You seem a little too passionate about this to be trusted without hesitation.

[Riadach]

Are you not passionate about things you have devoted your life to? You may ignore the points I have made that indicated the team member is wrong, but a little further research on your part will indicate that what I have stated is indeed correct.

Look under the orthography section of Old Irish in wikipedia for a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Irish

[Thaatu]

At this point in my life, I am pretty passionate about breathing and... no, that's it. Anyway, as some have told a few times already, the person in question is absent, thus not able to say anything in his defence. The accusation of intentionally lying is what bugs me.

[Riadach]

Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?

[Foot]

Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?

No, but there are certainly better ways of presenting yourself. Perhaps instead of being so sure of yourself, you could be a little more humble and open to differing opinion. It wouldn't come across as an insult against one of our members, then.

Foot

[Starforge]

Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?

While I might be delusional about having a passing interest in history, I would never presume to lecture anyone here on content since my area of expertise lies in I/S not the deeper roots of my hobbies.

That having been said, since the person who's material is in question here cannot be here to defend himself and attacking what's available will be fruitless, perhaps using your expertise to correct / suggest corrections for what you see is wrong would be a better venue? Unless I misunderstood - they asked for help / assistance regarding the units and would be interested in your input regarding such. Would that not, perhaps, be a better focus?

[KARTLOS]

I do not. I merely wanted to point this out. However, considering the reaction from many posters, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.

it seems youve gone from simply trying to help us to wanting to stir up a reaction from us....

ive been really interested in what you have had to say so i think it was good you brought up these issues. it does strike me that the langauge errors that you have pointed out seem rather basic, i.e ones that no one with any working knowledge of the language should make. In addition i share your concern about these mysterious unpublished cycles. i think those who are defending this do not seem to understand the fundemental nature of what a cycle is - i.e it that it is a large body of varied work around a theme, not 1 book or poem. thus the idea that there could be un-translated cycles out there does strike me as being incredibly unlikley. you would have thought some hint of there existence would at least be present in the oral tradition.

however the eb team seem quite insulted by the suggestion that they may have been taken in by so knd of historical fantasist. as the person in question is not going to be around to defend himself , it would probably be best to accept for the minute that the individual perhaps overeached themselves rather than malisciously tried to trick everyone.

to move forward positively why dont you suggest language changes that you think would be more accurate. highlight specific things that you belive have such little foundation it would be necessary to remove them (unless solid evidence can be provided to the contrary), and suggest alternative quotes to replace the contreversial cycle quotes.

and to the eb team - dont you think it would perhaps be best to remove the contreversial cycle quotes for the present?

[Riadach]

I could indeed provide names for the goidilic units if they so wish. I don't think I (or anyone else for that matter) could provide you with the primitive Irish for such, but I could find old Irish no problem.

As for quotes, I'll leave this discussion with one.

Cú Culainn: 'Acht ropa airderc-sa, maith lim cenco beind acht óenlá for domun .’

‘Provided I be famous, I am content to be only one day on earth.’’

[Riadach]

No, but there are certainly better ways of presenting yourself. Perhaps instead of being so sure of yourself, you could be a little more humble and open to differing opinion. It wouldn't come across as an insult against one of our members, then.

Foot

I would be normally, if it was a mere difference of opinion. But some of the errors were so blatantly obvious, the grammatical and spelling ones for instance, that I had no choice but to be sure in myself in this instance. It would be akin to someone telling an egyptologist that cairo was the faronic capital of egypt. Would they offer the turh as a difference of opinion in that instance if it was a known indisputable fact? I hope you can understand that point of view.

[Foot]

I would be normally, if it was a mere difference of opinion. But some of the errors were so blatantly obvious, the grammatical and spelling ones for instance, that I had no choice but to be sure in myself in this instance. It would be akin to someone telling an egyptologist that cairo was the faronic capital of egypt. Would they offer the turh as a difference of opinion in that instance if it was a known indisputable fact? I hope you can understand that point of view.

Perhaps. I can see your point of view. Of course, I couldn't really speak of the problems with the language there, as I have no knowledge (though I do envy those who do). But still, perhaps less accusative. If there is one thing I have learnt from my Philosophy Degree, is that generally we misunderstand one another, and giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt in friendly situations is advisable. Humans tend to jump to conclusions, which is very good as a survival ability in social situations, but often it overplays in circumstances that offer chances for misunderstanding. In academia, misunderstandings are one's bread and butter, and in my opinion it pays to be kinda than would otherwise be the case.

Foot

[Riadach]

Perhaps. I can see your point of view. Of course, I couldn't really speak of the problems with the language there, as I have no knowledge (though I do envy those who do). But still, perhaps less accusative. If there is one thing I have learnt from my Philosophy Degree, is that generally we misunderstand one another, and giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt in friendly situations is advisable. Humans tend to jump to conclusions, which is very good as a survival ability in social situations, but often it overplays in circumstances that offer chances for misunderstanding. In academia, misunderstandings are one's bread and butter, and in my opinion it pays to be kinda than would otherwise be the case.

Foot

Seriously though if I had any doubt, I would not have posted at all, and even if that, I did it grudgingly. I've been questioning and questioning myself to see if I could have overlooked something, to see if I was being harsh, to see maybe if they were welsh cycles instead of Irish cycles. But no. Anything i've seen has only reaffirmed by deductions, and even if I had the slightest inkling I was wrong, I would not have approached with such self confidence.

[abou]

Have you thought about the possibility that the Cycles could be in a private collection? It happens quite a lot, actually. The Gospel of Judas and a copy of Archimedes' writings are examples. Unfair, I know, but it happens.

[Foot]

Seriously though if I had any doubt, I would not have posted at all, and even if that, I did it grudgingly. I've been questioning and questioning myself to see if I could have overlooked something, to see if I was being harsh, to see maybe if they were welsh cycles instead of Irish cycles. But no. Anything i've seen has only reaffirmed by deductions, and even if I had the slightest inkling I was wrong, I would not have approached with such self confidence.

History has been full of people who have thought themselves right, scientists whose very charakter is one of academic self-doubt. People have believed in matter with a negative mass, believed in a universal ether and in the inability for animals to have a sense of self. If history has taught us anything, it is that people are generally wrong! Even had I been so sure of myself I would not approach a subjekt with such a manner, at the very least because of a sense of respect for an opponent, if not because of a knowledge of my own limitations.

Yet I cannot complain too much, I've been guilty - far too much - of the same lack of ... flexibility ... in my own statements on various subjects. In retrospect I have found my manner lacking in a certain humility, and have chastised myself because of it.

Foot

[Riadach]

Have you thought about the possibility that the Cycles could be in a private collection? It happens quite a lot, actually. The Gospel of Judas and a copy of Archimedes' writings are examples. Unfair, I know, but it happens.

I have indeed considered it, but I must respond that linguistically, orthographically, and grammatically these cannot be real cycles. They make very simple grammatical, linguistc and orthographical mistakes. As simple as writing something boy little as opposed to little boy in Irish. Or finding the word fertiliser in beowulf, or indeed the name John Simpson or Mikhael Debrensky. I'm not necessairly claiming that I am aware of all the texts, but as I said before, cycles are massive amounts of literature that can include thousands of different tracts or writings spanning thousands of years.

[Riadach]

History has been full of people who have thought themselves right, scientists whose very charakter is one of academic self-doubt. People have believed in matter with a negative mass, believed in a universal ether and in the inability for animals to have a sense of self. If history has taught us anything, it is that people are generally wrong! Even had I been so sure of myself I would not approach a subjekt with such a manner, at the very least because of a sense of respect for an opponent, if not because of a knowledge of my own limitations.

Yet I cannot complain too much, I've been guilty - far too much - of the same lack of ... flexibility ... in my own statements on various subjects. In retrospect I have found my manner lacking in a certain humility, and have chastised myself because of it.

Foot

Well, not to sound cocky, but i've started so I'll finish, I'm not wrong on this issue. Any rudimentary introduction to Old and Modern Irish will prove me right.

This mod started with the very high-minded aim, that the information in CA was criminally inaccurrate (don't get me started on their galloglaigh in BI). You did not suggest that they may be mistaken, you stated categorically that it was wrong, something that was just and right to do, and you set about creating a mod to iron out these mistakes.

When i saw the information list of the Goidilic faction. I was faced with a similar situation to your own. I knew this was wrong, I knew the sources provided were dodgy if they existed at all, the names used were linguistically inaccurate, and the quotes did not correspond in any way to the rules of the Irish language. Therefore to correct this, I decided that a mod basing itself on accuracy, would appreciate the information I had to offer. It was my duty to inform you that these were inaccurate. Had i suggested in a haphazard, unconfident manner that these could or may be wrong, I don't imagine I'd be taken seriously. I do apologise for my approach, but I am passionate about my field of expertise, and like all historians, hate to see blatant inaccuracies.

[Moros]

Wierd...Did Ranika really make such simple mistakes? Didn't he even translate texts for various Universities even upto Poland?

Anyway, thanks to bring this up, Riadach. I and a lot of EB-members have no idea about the historical or linguistic correctness. It would be great if you could suggest some changes and corrections. Though I think we'd also should get some input or feedback from Anthony on this matter, as he's our new specialist.

EDIT: Skipped Anthony's post apparantly. In that case I'm glad to hear that they were just WIP. So they'll get updated/corrected.