Talk:Cotini

Cotini is never ever a celtic tribe, that area is absolutly R1a dominant. Cotini are Germans. For a celtic tribe is it a very stupid idea to settle in a area when all sites are germans or skythes. That is more "celtomanie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.43 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not "Celtomanie" because in "De origine et situ Germanorum" XLIII, Tacitus mentions the Cotini as speaking Gaulish http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_origine_et_situ_Germanorum_(Germania)#XLIII Taranis2010 (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cotini or Gotini?

I recently created the Gotini stub, which is the spelling used by Tacitus who is apparently the main source. I then discovered this article and I note that some sources "correct" Tacitus to "Cotini". The two articles clearly should be merged, but which spelling should be the main one? I note for example this type of information:

GOTHI´NI
Eth. GOTHI´NI or GOTI´NI, a tribe on the east of the Quadi and Marcomanni, that is, in the extreme south-east of ancient Germany, who, according to the express testimony of Tacitus (Germ. 43), spoke the Celtic language. Some believe that the Cotini, mentioned by Dio Cassius (71.12), and the Κῶγνοι of Ptolemy (2.11.21), are identical with the Gothini. Tacitus's description of their habitations, “Terga Marcomannorum Guadorumque claudunt,” is somewhat ambiguous, whence some have placed them on the Vistula, in the neighbourhood of Cracow, while others understand Tacitus to refer to the south-east of the Quadi and Marcomanni, that is, the country now called Styria. Others again regard the country about the river March as the original seats of the Gothini: and this view derives some support from the fact that the names about the Lunawald are Celtic, and that the mountain contains ancient iron mines; for Tacitus expressly states that the Gothini were employed in iron mines. (Comp. Wilhelm, Germanien, p. 231, fol.; Duncker, Orig. German. i. p. 55, foll.; Latham, on Tacit. Germ. p. 156.)

Comments requested. The other option is that we should have two articles as it does not appear to be proven that the Gotini of Tacitus (which this Cotini article is mainly about) are the Cotini of Dio Cassius. But then in reality both articles would be very short and refer to each other. The Dio Cassius use of the Cotini spelling is here and just says that the Cotini asked the Romans for land if they would attack the Marcomanni, and that they failed to do so, leading to their destruction. The third reference is to Ptolemy's Κῶγνοι, which can be seen here. He places them south of the Sidones, south of the Askiburgi mountains (I think the modern Sudeten mountains in Ptolemy) but north of Hyrcynian valley. So as in Tacitus they are near the Buri and north of the Quadi.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As both articles are stubs, I shall not spend too much time waiting for a reply. I'll do a merge to Gotini for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the merger is justified, good job and handling the article(s). I also think it was a good idea to add it as ″Gotini″ or ″Cotini″. Also with Ptolemy's ″Kognoi″, if you spell ″Κωγνοι″ as ″ΚΩΓΝΟΙ″ it becomes similar to ″ΚΩΤΝΟΙ″, which means that the name may indeed identical to the Cotini or Cassius Dio. I would not place that into the article (it would be a violation of the original research clause), since this is just guesswork by me. Taranis2010 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure which bit you think would violate WP:OR? The possible equation with the Kognoi was from a published source as mentioned above. Anyway thanks for your kind words.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)