Talk:Laugharne

History

It seems to me that there is far too much minute detail in the history section, not all of it relevant or of interest to the reader. I will leave it for now to see whether anyone else thinks so, too. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree. More soucing is also required. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, a revision of this section would benefit the article and is overdue. Hope to make a start soon. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• My Perrott Family Data-52.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Addition to History Section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

improved proposal. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Suggestions invited for the best way to describe and reference Laugharne's significance as the oldest, continuously inhabited, human settlement still surviving in Wales. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(proposed edit to History Section opening...)

The evidence of prehistoric humans at Coygan cave makes Laugharne Township the oldest, still inhabited settlement in Wales.
Contemporary artefacts from the Middle Palaeolithic period have also been found at Paviland and Long Hole Cave on the Gower along with older hominid remains at Bont Newydd in Cefn Meiriadog but, unlike at Laugharne, the communities associated with them are long vanished. Located on Coygan Rock, a massive limestone peninuslar overlooking the now flooded coastal plain to the south, Coygan Cave was excavated five times between 1866 and 1964 before being entirely destroyed by quarrying in the 1970s. The site has produced evidence of an extended series of occupations from the arrival of the first humans over 50,000 years ago and their return soon after the ice sheets retreated in the Mesolothic era. In the 4th century BC a hillfort was built and this continued to be occupied throughout the Iron Age, the Roman period between 270-310 AD and then into the early medieval period. .

(Note: refs 1 & 3 contain screengrabs of URL link (1) and URL link (2) to current online supporting sources - advice sought on displaying correctly.) Help:URL

(cont'd) Laugharne was originally in Gwarthaf, the largest of the seven cantrefi of the Kingdom of Dyfed in southwest Wales, and subsequently became part of Deheubarth. In 1093, Deheubarth was seized by the Normans following Rhys ap Tewdwrs death.[9] In the early 12th century, grants of lands were made to Flemings by King Henry I when their country was flooded.[10]...... Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• Support any and all well referenced additions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as is. While it probably makes sense for the article to mention the site, the cited sources do not support claims such as made the Township a candidate for the oldest surviving inhabited human settlement not only in Wales, but also in Britain and possibly all of Northern Europe. and Slightly earlier contemporary artefacts from the Middle Palaeolithic period, over 50,000 years ago, have been found elsewhere, for example on the beaches of Kent, Norfolk and the Gower, but these are all associated with long vanished communities., "unfortunately" is editorializing and should be removed, and "recently" should be replaced with an actual time ("recently" isn't any more after some time has passed, but "in YEAR" will remain correct no matter how much time passes.) Also, why is one cited source a review of a work about the site, rather than that work itself? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Horatius At The Bridge: what is your [[WP:RFCBRIEF|brief and neutral statementHoratius At The Bridge (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)]]? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  This edit has completely removed the statement. That is no good, either: a brief and neutral statement is mandatory (see WP:RFCST), otherwise the RfC is invalid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  OK, that should work, except that we don't shout out the RfC statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Horatius At The Bridge, an RfC is meant to be a request for comment on a specific fixed proposal, not something you keep changing during it. If it's not ready yet, prepare it and discuss it on talk first, and then make an RfC once you have it hammered out. I don't appreciate you having made my comment basically nonsense by changing what the RfC is even about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• SeraphimbladePlease be assured that your comments were much appreciated and I believe the proposal has been significantly improved by the purifying fires of dialectic. I'm sorry but I was unaware of the 'fixed' requirement and that my editorial efforts were such a frequently moving target. Many thanks to you and the other editors for taking the trouble to carefully examine its contents and provide such useful feedback. I'm now closing the request as discussion in this context seems to be completed. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inline external links

Per WP:ELPOINTS no. 2, I have removed the following inline external links from the History section of the article:

• prehistoric humans
• Coygan Bluff
• quarrying
• a long occupation sequence
• summit of the hill
• Iron Age
• 6th century AD.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Roman Laugharne

Leucariwm (now Laugharne) was a Roman station on the Via Julia which was carried along the coast from Moridunum (now Carmarthen) to Isca Silurum (now Caerleon).

An editor has reverted my above addition to the History section on the following grounds:

“Not credible as Laugharne is not on any reasonable route from Carmarthen to Caerleon, very old source. I can't find any reference to Roman road remains in Laugharne on Coflein.”

I think its removal is unjustified. Laugharne had a Roman fort which was linked by land to their other centres. Castellae and villas were not actually physically on the main route of 'Via Julia' but connected to it.That designation, as with other Roman Roads, refers to the entire linear network. Coflein records only those parts of the Via Julia for which there is surviving archaeological evidence and actually new discoveries in south west Wales is currently a growth area.

The source cited is indeed old but is from the reliable and peer-reviewed journal of the British Archaeological Association and has not been contradicted as far as I know. Unless it has there is no reason for it being discounted as far as I can see.

Do others disagree that the reversion should be undone pending evidence showing the passage to be inaccurate?

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First, just to correct a typo: the placename as given by Picton is Leucarium not Leucariwm (i.e. Latin not Welsh). Second, I have checked this in Rivet, A. L. F.; Smith, Colin (1979). The Place-Names of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. pp. 174, 388–389.. They give the name in the form Leucarum, and source it to Iter XII of the Antonine Itinerary: they identify it as "probably" Loughor, Glamorgan, and derive it from the river-name Leuca, the modern River Loughor. See also Leucarum, which makes the same identification. Rivet & Smith admit a margin of doubt, and offer Hendy as another possibility, but not Laugharne. Third, Picton's Via Julia runs Moridunum–Leucariwm–Nidum–Isca Silurum; which he interprets as Carmarthen–Laugharne–Neath–Caerleon. That is clearly nonsense, given that Laugharne lies well to the (south-)west of Carmarthen, and suggests that the name may actually be a misprint, and not even what Picton intended. So all in all, despite the JBAA being a respectable and authoritative journal, I think on this point it's pretty clearly out of date and in error, and should be ignored. (As far as I can see, the name Via Julia is also pretty outmoded: I see it's used on some Coflein records for a road roughly along the line of the A40, but I can't find it used in any more general modern sources on Roman Britain, and I'm unclear where it originates.) GrindtXX (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That's very clear, @Verbcatcher:'s reversion was fully justified. Thank you both for taking the time to check my edit. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My Roman Britain (Map) (Fourth ed.). 1:625 000. Southampton: Ordnance Survey. 1991 [1978]. ISBN 0-319-29025-5. shows Roman roads running west from CICVCIVM (doubtfully identified as Y Gaer) to MORIDVNVM (Carmarthen) and south-west to NIDVM (Neath); but there is no direct road connecting Moridunum with Nidum; however, there is a fort between them at LEVCARVM (Loughor). Further west there is a fortlet at modern Tavernspite, but it's not given a Roman name. I suspect that this was very much a frontier area. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note addressing a couple of points made above. The now reverted edit was based on a secondary reference included in a recent article which reflects new interest and research into the extent of Roman influence in south-west Wales (it also accounts for my typo - see p31!) Among numerous collected extracts the following is offered as to the orgin of the name 'Via Julia' as mentioned by @GrindtXX:"Unknown Roman Roads” by Tudor A Morgan: “In the early days of their occupation the Roman s built a highway from Caerwent (Venta Silurum) to St David’s Head (Menapia). Julius Frontinus, AD 71-78 widened the road for military traffic, and ever since it been called the Via Julia...."

The wiki entry cites * Dahm, Murray K (1997), The Career and Writings of Sextus Julius Frontinus which contains this passage about his time in south west Wales:

Frontinus was appointed provincial governor of Britain as legatus Augusti pro praetore probably from 74 to 78. During his term of office he conquered the Silures of Wales, as Tacitus says in the Agricola:

. . . sustinuit molem Iulius Frontinus, vir magnus, quantam licebat, validamque et pugnacem Silurum gentem armis subegit, super virtutem hostium locorum quoque difficultates eluctatus.

. . . but Julius Frontinus was a great man, and so far as was humanly possible sustained the burden cast on him: his arms reduced the Silures, a powerful and warlike race; he surmounted not only the valour of the enemy but also the physical difficulties of their land.

This is the only solid evidence for the achievements of Frontinus' tenure as governor of Britain.. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References