Kaozeal:Maeatae

Hervez a lenner er Wikipediaoù all (en:Maetae, de:Maiatai) e oant o vevañ en tu-hont da Voger Antonin, en hanternoz dezhi, ha n'eo ket etre Moger Hadrian ha Moger Antonin, evel ma lenner er pennad brezhonek amañ pe er pennad spagnolek es:Maeatae. Gant piv emañ ar gwir ? --Llydawr (kaozeal) 16 Eos 2018 da 10:41 (UTC)

me gred e c'haller menegiñ an div vartezeadenn. Bianchi-Bihan (kaozeal) 16 Eos 2018 da 15:36 (UTC)

Identification. A confederation of tribes in the southern part of Scotland (the northern part beeing occupied by a similar confederation of Calidonii (q.v). As noted above, place-names indicate that they extended into Stirlingshire and their northern limit was probably the Mounth, but their southern extent is disputed an depends of the interpretation of the statement of Xiliphinus that they lived « near the cross-wall whitch cuts the island in two ». Collingwood (Roman Britain and the English Settlements (Oxford, 1937), 157) interpreted it as the Antonine Wall and in this wa followed by Richmond (Roman Britain (Harmondsworth, 1963), 57-59), but Frere (1974, 188) prefers Hadrian's wall an attaches the Selgovae (q.v.) to them. Rivet & Smith : The Place-names of Roman Britain. B.T. Batsford Ltd. London . 1979 / 1982. p. 404-2. JC Even --Dreist an Amzer 16 Eos 2018 da 16:57 (UTC)

Er pennad e ranker menegiñ an traoù-se neuze, kentoc'h eget amañ. --Llydawr (kaozeal) 17 Eos 2018 da 15:14 (UTC)

Un destenn all ː

Peter Salway : Roman Britain. Oxford University Press. 1981.

p. 226 : « The Maeatae, as far as we can ascertain, lived north of the Forth-Clyde istmus. On the face of it, therefore, Dio's statement would seem to support the alternative theory that the Antonine Wall, not Hadrian's, was occupied at this time. One is uncomfortably reminded of Sir Mortimer Wheeler's remark in another context : 'In the assessment of an active and constricted phase in which the written record is absent or confusely patchy, the translation of archeological evidence into history must always be a hazardous operation, not least when, with a seming perversity, it involves the rejection of written statement'. Yet we cannot safely use Dio as proof of which wall was in use at that time. His own source may have been ambiguous, or he may be making a geographical rather than a military reference. In either case, there need be no inconsistency between the statement and the employment of Hadrian's Wall rather than the Antonine one as the linear barrier at this time. There may, too, have been an added source of confusion in the information available to Dio, in that at least one fort on the Antonine Wall – Castlecary – has produced evidence of occupation well after the abandonment of the Wall itself in the 160s. Certain forts between the Walls had continued to be held, and it seems probable that Castlecary was maintained (for how long we dont know) as an outlier to the main system further south without the Antonine Wall as such remaining in commission »

JC Even --Dreist an Amzer 18 Eos 2018 da 18:04 (UTC)