Talk:Dogs of Roman Britain

message: Could this possibly promote input with improvement of the authenticity, content & quality of this page, which until now has remained trivial in the extreme? Respectfully suggest it should be renamed "Dogs of the Roman Empire", which could include the different historical & geographical areas which have contributed dog-types, leading into creation of precursor "breeds" in the early Middle Ages, which should be based on primary historical sources, reviewed zooarchaeology & genetics, instead of secondary popular publications full of personal interpretations and assumptions. An invitation to interested parties. Grattius: mille canum patriae ductique ab origine mores quoique sua - Dogs belong to a thousand lands and they each have characteristics derived from their origin. Duff & Duff 1934 p167--Richard Hawkins (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: University assignment?

message: Do pictures exist? Drutt 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant to say do any images exist of these dogs since pictures (photographs) weren't around when the breed still existed.  I should think that somewhere there must be an artistic depiction of the dogs.  I'll see what I can find.  In the meantime, anyone else who might know of an existing image of the dog, please feel free to add it to the article - it would be a great improvement.LiPollis (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: images?

message: I think we we have a similar issue with the following sentence ... 
*Oppian says the fighting dog had light brown eyes, truncated muzzle, loose skin above the brows, a broad back, great stature, and muscular legs.Homan, M. (1999). A Complete History of Fighting Dogs. (Pg. 9). Howell Book House. ISBN 1-58245-128-1
I no longer trust dog books to accurately quote ancient sources.  I am removing the sentence and ref until someone can double check that Oppian actually said this (and was talking about British dogs of some sort while doing so).  Again, we need to cite directly to Oppian for what Oppian said, and not accept the word of an author of dog books. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I can't imagine why we should use a dog book instead of the original. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: and Oppian

message: Is Pugnaces Britanniae attested, anywhere, as a classical name for this breed? If so, where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you do some research yourself for once ! Green Squares (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having done so, before I asked, I found none. The usage of the present title appears to be two dog books, and an article in Turcica in French; if it were a clear classical reference, there would be more. Does any responsible editor have an actual citation, or an idea where to move this? If not, I'll pick something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moving it would be sweeping it under the carpet, apart from the danger of replacing a little used expression by another little used expression or neologism. As far as I am concerned, I consider the claim that this is a single breed rather more problematic than the name used for it. I strongly suspect that that's wishful thinking. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And for that reason, we could use a descriptive title, like British dogs of antiquity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Dogs of Roman Brittania? (just giving some options, I don't really care what is used) Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points from someone following this at a distance.  (1) The title of Roman Britain should be followed if a reference is needed.  (2) I wonder whether Dogs of Roman Britain is a bit on the narrow side, when one article might well be able to encompass all the available treatment of what is encyclopedically notable about dog breeds of ancient Europe.  I wouldn't presume to set the boundaries in time and space for the article, not having in my mind a census of the articles that now exist in Wikipedia--but why not consolidate?  Wareh (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your first point, but the second is an excellent idea. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My first point was simply that if we are to refer to "Roman Britain" in the title of an article (and if others agree with your endorsement of my second point, then the need will not arise), we should use that name (as opposed to "Roman Brittania" etc.) because it is standard and because the Wikipedia article on the subject goes under that name.  But you understood my more general & rambling point, so I'm satisfied!  Wareh (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Let's stick to what we know.  We know that several classical writers referred to dogs coming from Roman Britain (these writers do not give these dogs a "breed name" so we do not know if they were considered a distinct breed in those days).  We know that some modern dog breed authors think that these dogs were a distinct breed and that this breed was the progenitor of the modern Mastiff and/or Bull-dog.  We also know that other dog breed authors disagree. 
I have re-written the lede to account for these facts in what I believe is a neutral tone, not supporting any viewpoint in the debates. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework of Lede 

message: Although Grattius did indeed write about dogs as was finally shown, he doesn't seem to have written the quote included in the article. Dog books aren't generally reliable sources for Roman texts, and a translation of Grattius can be found here] if anyone wants to use it. Any claims as to what the Romans said or did should be cited to academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, saved too soon. We already have a Grattius quote in any case, using the source above. The real issue is Pugnaces Britanniae as discussed above. You really need historical sources for this also. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grattius again 

message: There is now a new source available to all online, which presents the current scientific state of the art. It should be consulted by all contributors to this page. 
References to Roman dogs by contemporary authors of popular dog books on modern "breeds", such as Fleig, Wynn etc. are simply personal assumptions, they are not historical fact. Unless it is clearly stated that they are only assumptions, they should have no place in this article - lest this page descend to the depths of mythology presented for example in the page on the Irish Wolfhound.
Bennett,D. Campbell,G. & Timm, R.M. 2016 The dogs of Roman Vindolanda Part I
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/21001/Bennet%20et%20al%202016%20Vindolanda%20Dogs.pdf?sequence=1
Bennett, D. & Timm R.M. 2016 The dogs of Roman Vindolanda Part II 
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/21002/Vindolanda%20Dogs%20II.pdf?sequence=1
Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New scientific source which is the most significant contribution to the study since Harcourt 1974 & Clark 1995