Talk:Epidii

Re: *Ecidii, I don't have a copy of The Age of the Picts to hand to give a page ref. It's either in chapter 6 or near the end (if there's anyone reads this who has a copy to hand and cares to check). And perhaps add the digression on Eochaid Reuda as well ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

"More recent research would make them Goidelic-speaking Scotti rather than Brythonic-speaking Britons. [1]" well, if true, that would make the name Echidii, whereas the name Epidii is clearly attested. Its true that later people in that geographical area were Scotti/Irish, but then they were no longer the Epidii.... NantonosAedui (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Ptolemaic references hardly qualify as "clearly" unless supported by some other sort of evidence. See here (cached pdf) for a reliable source arguing that Goidelic is likely. This fits perfectly well with "cumulative Celticity" models given that Argyll lies in the (Goidelic) Irish Sea province. Epidii, like Ptolemy's northern Scottish and Irish ones, is a name and little more. There's no history attached, no genealogies, and only tenuous "just so" stories that can explain their origins. If, and when, there is a History of Argyll article, this one should become a redirect to it. If only for that reason, it's worth having a remark about the language here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cached pdf link, although unfortunately the link is broken. This does look very like historical revisionism to me - attempting to back-port the Scotti to an earlier period than really fits. If the Epidii had been Goidelic speaking they would have had a Goidelic name. Ptolomeic references correlate well with otherwise attested names in general, so there is no reason to suspect the accuracy of this particular one. --Nantonos 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Angus Mclellan, Ptolemy's map is based on earlier sources, and in the case of Scotland probably dates in large part to Roman surveys made during the campaigns of Agricola in the the 70s and 80s CE.

Agricola campaigned in the Argyll, and possibly in the Kintyre peninsula itself, the area associated with the Epidii.

Ewan Campbell's contention that "Ptolemy's source for his Scottish names was probably from the Scottish Central Lowlands, and may have transmitted the Brittonic form of a Goidelic tribal name" is therefore without clear basis, since Roman intelligence sources used for surveys would have had first-hand knowledge of local tribal names from the very people living in the Argyll region, ostensibly a Gaelic region at this early stage by Campbell's implication.

In "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795" (p.148), historian James E. Fraser cautions against this approach:

"The Flavian surveys placed Epidii in Kintyre, 'horsemen' whose name is certainly British in character, not Gaelic. The Flavian surveyors were engaged in the serious work of preparing military and diplomatic intelligence. Epidii may represent a British translation of a native Gaelic name, but one requires strong contrary evidence before impugning the survey's testimony in this way...Equestrian continuity in the ethnic terminology of southern Argyll conspires with material cultural continuity to suggest that no great disjuncture took place here between the Flavian period and the seventh century. Yet the linguistic evidence points to a shift from British to Gaelic speech in the region."

Jacob D (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Jacob D