Talk:Rheged

Misc.

I have altered the date for the end of Rheged to before 730 because Bede says Whithorn was in his day "deep in English territory". I think 633 is right, but I have not fully checked sources on this so I have put it in as only a POV for now.

On the OS map of Roman Britain, <Rigodunum> (Rheged-fort) appears near Oldham with a "?" Does anyone know HOW certain/questionable this identification is?

I have taken out the claim of English presence in Rheged while it was independent because I believe the evidence (e.g. Taliesin) contradicts this assertion.

[User: Pachiaammos] 01-05-04

Is there any independant verification of this statement: "Meric's grandson the A.D. 130f King Llew alias Lucius -- the first British King to proclaim Christianity as the state religion of his own territory -- in about 156 A.D." - The Historical Importance of Ancient Celtic Christian Cumbria - 'by Australian Rev. Professor-Emeritus Dr. Francis Nigel Lee ' If it is true then it certainly should be included. At present all that is stated is that Rheged was nominally christian in the late Roman period. --Ammi 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely. The start of the piece - "The Cumbrian or Old-Cymric Gomer-ian culture (Genesis 10:1-5)..." - does not suggest that it's going to be a reliable source, and, sure enough, it continues in the same eccentric manner. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

it does however refer to the two main authorities on the subject: C. Thomas: Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500 and H. Williams: Christianity in Early Britain, extensively in the text and in its bibliography. As I have no copy of either book I cannot verify if this is the source for his information aside from his comment that "Professor of Church History Rev. Dr. Hugh Williams remarked in his famous book Christianity in Early Britain,87 that Britain's first Christian king -- the great-grandson of Arviragus -- was no other than Lucius". What is needed is external confirmation of the date of Lucius' reign and a quote from Hugh William's original book on the subject to demonstrate where he got the information from. --Ammi

The author cites Charles Thomas on St Patrick, so that has no bearing on the question. He does not quote Williams directly, but the paragraph following the one you quote might give an idea as to what Williams wrote: "Williams added that this story of Lucius became amazingly popular and widespread during the Middle Ages. The story was accepted by many as authentic history." That's not quite the same thing as the author is claiming. Short of reading Williams' book, I think that's as far as one can go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So at the very least we are talking about hearsay, which is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Until we can get some independant verification it should not be cited with any authority. However, would it be worth mentioning that in the Middle Ages the story of Rheged's Christian king Lucius was popular? That would seem relevent, and certainly it is as verifiable at present as much information used on Wikipedia in other articles. --Ammi

Absolutely, that would be the right thing to do. Not only is it informative, which is good, but by explaining that it's a medieval popular belief which was accepted as history at various times (and you could use the article you found to say things like "Holinshead wrote X" or whatever) that would stop people wondering "Well, what about that site/article/book I saw that mentioned Lucius and Rheged ?" Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Lucius of Britain. He is straight out of Geoffrey of Monmouth and nothing to do with Rheged. King Lucius of Britain is a character invented through confusion, because the Catalogus Felicianus mentions a letter from 'Lucio Britannio rege' to Pope Eleutherius. This letter was in reality from the historical Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus IX, King of Britium in Edessa. Bede seems to have been the first to have attached him to Britain. Walgamanus 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Almost nothing is known about "Rheged" other than that it is a place (among others) owned by Urbgen in some Welsh poetry. Article contains too much unverified and spurious information to be up to wiki quality. Who, for instance, invented the terms North Rheged and South Rheged? Was it a wiki editor, a website author, or an actual dark age historian? The article contains some good information, it just needs to avoid presenting a blanket unproblematic narrative of a Kingdom which may not even have actually been a kingdom at all. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Amongst dark age historians the terms "south rheged" and "north rheged" are widely used and are found in ALL sources I have ever read concerning Rheged. I recommend you look at the references cited at the bottom of this article, and in particular;

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/BritainRheged.htm

http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/urienrd.html

http://www.britannia.com/bios/ebk/urienrd.html

With all places like this historians take the evidence, both in written history (usually buried in obscure and ancient Welsh manuscripts recording someone's ancestry) and also through archaeology. After a period of analysis where the evidence is compared they come to an opinion of what is most likely to have been the case. Where it is conjecture the author of this wiki has used terms such as "suggest", "may", "could", "thought" etc. However, it is universally accepted amongst dark age historians that a) rheged existed, b) it existed in the area around Carlisle, c) that it's people were romano-british and not anglo-saxon, d) that it became divided before it was consumed by Northumbria and for conveniences sake these divisions are known as "north" and "south" Rheged. 212.85.13.68

The relevant volume in the Regional History of England — Higham's The Northern Counties to AD 1000 — offers this opinion: "it is rash to see Rheged extending south of Tebay or, at furthest, Kirkby Lonsdale, and the kingdom may be broadly conterminous with the earlier civitas Carvetiorum" (p. 253). That's only one source, but Higham's book is a reliable source while Kessler and Nash-Ford's websites aren't. Higham has written other stuff on the British kingdoms of the North, Northern History should have relevant articles in recent issues, and although Phythian-Adams's Land of the Cumbrians got a mixed review it would be the obvious place to start. The RHS bibliography, if fed appropriate search terms, will cough up no end of books and articles which might be useful. My first attempt found McCarthy, "Rheged: an early historic kingdom near the Solway" and McCarthy and Weston, Carlisle and Cumbria: Roman and medieval architecture, art and archaeology which might be handy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to log in when I did it, but I have had a go at clarifying some of the information on this page, as per the discussion above. As Angus says, very little is actually known about Rheged, despite the impression to the contrary. With Kessler and Nash Ford, you just have to understand their sources. 212.85.13.68 is correct in their points A-C. D, although it fits the known facts, is not proven. This new version is largely a revamp of what was already there with extra info regarding what is supposition and what are the known facts. I hope the balance is right. Walgamanus 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on Dunragit; the place-name is interesting, but the location is bare of archaeological evidence. Its connection with Rheged is based on conjecture, conjecture going back (as it always does with Scottish place-names) to Watson. Hence, the idea is rather flimsy. The kingdom of "Rheged" is just the product of later writers seizing on that name as the name of Urien's kingdom, and if you check the sources, it's actually one of many names. There is a good way of reconstructing Urien's powerbase (which is not the same a Rheged, which could be his birth village for all we know), and this is to plot the locations he and his successor attacked. If you do that, his over-kingdom looks like the Northumbria of Oswiu's period - Britannia Inferior, the Brigantes? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment about Dunragit and stronghold V kingdom. Although Dunragit seems a popular derivation, place-name evidence is very problematic. This probably needs clarifying on its own page. Morris-Jones is an older ref than Watson. Kingdom epithets like that used by Maelgwn Gwynedd are quite common. I have altered the article accordingly. Walgamanus 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a map of Rheged, please? Ysgol Rhiwabon (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Partition of Rheged

The only source I can quote regarding the alleged partition of Rheged and whether this was common practice, is T P Ellis' Welsh Tribal Law in the Middle Ages which having been published in 1926 might be rather outdated, but then, it's not much older than the Chadwicks' work which is quoted. It says that where land could be partitioned (and was) between surviving sons, the office of kingship was not divisible (vol. I p. 29). I'd be interested to see where specifically the assertion is made in The Growth of Literature that partition of actual kingdoms, Frankish style, had become common among the Britons. Paul S (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Partiable inheritance is widely accepted in the relavant literature. The idea that Coel Hen ruled much of the North and that the later kingdoms - Rheged, Elmet, Ebrauc, Manau etc. - were the result of partition amongst his heirs is supported by the claims of common descent found in the ruling families of these states. It is difficult to come up with any other theory fitting the genealogies that have survived. I do not think that the assertion in the article is in any sense controversial. The lack of partition of kingship in Medieval Wales is just that - after c.800 the political divisions of Wales were relatively stable, the same cannot be said of post-Roman Britain. Also there is evidence of the action of overlordship in early British society. Maelgwn's son Rhun campaigned widely in Northern Britain and Cadwallon was fairly obviously overlord over much of Britain after defeating Edwin. An overlord-king might not be unhappy about his relatives and tributaries calling themselves kings too, as to be the superior of other kings gave added prestige. Urselius (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any recorded rulers of Ebrauc and Manaw is the land of Cunedda, no relation to Coel Hen except possibly by marriage. Once we arrive at historical figures rather than legenday ones like Coel, what evidence is there for partitioning? According to the Harleian Genealogies, Alt Clut has 20 generations of kings without it ever being partitioned. Assuming the historicity of Cunedda, he doesn't partition Gwynedd among his nine sons, the kingdom continues intact until the extinction of his dynasty in the 9th Century. I want to know exactly who says and where it is said, that the Britons customarily partitioned their kingdoms among their sons as the Franks did, when it seems that in Wales they didn't. Paul S (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Peredur Steelarm seems to have been a ruler of Ebrauc. If you have a record of half a dozen kingdoms all ruled by rulers claiming a common ancestor then partition of an original patrimony is a logical conclusion. There are no records of this, as you are aware, it has not been called the Dark Ages for no reason. Urselius (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your concerns, Paul S, this is much more productive than just placing tags without making it clear what the issue is. To respond to your concerns, first, this doesn't sound particularly controversial. I'm surprised to hear you say that Gwynedd wasn't divided; in fact Cunedda's grandson Meirion is supposed to have divided the territory up among Cunedda's sons. It doesn't sound unreasonable that scholars like the Chadwicks could speculate that something similar happened in Rheged.

This said, I am a bit skeptical about how significant this viewpoint really is. Other sources I have for Rheged don't mention anything about it, and most more recent sources seem to focus on how little we know about Rheged's extent rather than making much of the possibility of there being northern and southern Rhegeds. Obviously a book on literature from 1940 probably isn't the most cutting edge thing we could be using. But this article has a lot more serious problems than this apparently cited passage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I confess to never having heard of him, but what we have in reality is a single kingdom of Gwynedd not nine separate kingdoms - I'd point again to the difference in Welsh law between the divisibility of real property and the indivisibility of the office of kingship. For this to work for the Hen Ogledd, Urien or someone would have to be the paramount king with Gwallog, Gwrgi, Peredur and Dunot's nameless son(s) as sub-kings... you are right, the article has problems, perhaps because it seems to draw from a narrow selection of sources or sometimes no sources at all. Paul S (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You've never heard of who? At any rate, there were indeed multiple different kingdoms in northern Wales that were supposedly carved out of Cunedda's territory by his sons (Merionydd, Ceredigion, Osfeiling, Rhufoniog, Dogfeiling, Edeirnion and perhaps others, all named for the appropriate descendent). At different times they were under the contol of Gwynedd, at other times they were independent or controlled by some other power. As such it's not out of the question that something similar could happen in Rheged. I don't have access to the book, but it sounds like all they're saying is that given some of the references to Llywarch, it's possible that there was once a wider kingdom that was later divided up. This sounds reasonable, if not particularly pressing given the much more serious issues with the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Urien was the paramount king and his murder, with his Owein already dead, triggered a fragmentation as the other descendants of Coel couldn't agree on a successor... but I'm getting a nasty attack of original research now. What issues would you identify as the most important to deal with in the article? Paul S (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Paul S. The article needs a lot of work. It includes a lot of speculation (for instance the material on South Rheged) while leaving out important details, such as possible connections to the Brigantes civitas. There's little on either Llywarch or Urien Rheged and it doesn't even note they were related. The name section misses key names associated with Urien, and like most other sections it's pretty weakly sourced. Again, a lot of work needs to be done; in fact the article should probably be rewritten entirely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does note the relatedness of Urien and Llywarch, it states that Llychwarch's line were descended from a brother of Urien's father and that Liywarch was the son of this man, by a simple calculation the reader can work out that he was Urien's first cousin. Urselius (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that it barely touches on this and other important matters. It needs to be totally rewritten.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of any reliable sources for the kind of partitioning that happened on the continent on a customary basis, any division of kingdoms in Britain was surely just a question of who had military strength and how long his arm was? This was not an age when whole kingdoms remained loyal to a king who lacked the ability to put men in the field, where there was such a ruler the area under his real control inevitably shrank. The same process can be observed all over the world, and, indeed, is still going on, although now there is usually some pretense at democracy, to give credibility to the men with the guns. Moonraker (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the clause "as was common in later Brittonic kingdoms" because it clearly wasn't, although it does appear as a Dindsenchas-style legendary explanation for some Welsh and Scottish placenames, there is no such common practice in later historical times. Paul S (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

" The head that I carry carried me; I shall find it no more; it will come no more to my succour. Woe to my hand, my happiness is lost ! " Llywarch carrying the severed head of Urien. Some parts of the article are quite reasonable, the ones with citations. Urselius (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Argoed could be "Rheged", just in a different grammatical form

There is the logical possibility that Rheged/Argoed is exactly the same proper noun, simply mentioned in a different tense &/or "case" &/or with a preposition. For example, one version - say, "Rheged", may be the nominative case and "Argoed" the transformation that occurs when saying "at Rheged" or "from Rheged" or "Rheged was...". The convention in modern Scottish Gaelic* is to insert "silent" letters like "h" after consonants or "i" after certain vowels, to indicate that a noun changes its vowels or consonants under certain circumstances -- e.g. when a preposition is used, or when it's a particular case or tense. (*I don't know anything about Welsh or Breton, so can't comment on any similarity there.) It would be good if someone knowledgeable about Celtic languages could contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.173.97 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe argoed has a literal meaning in Welsh or Early Welsh of 'by a wood', related to the word coit meaning 'forest'. Urselius (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct. There is no connection between this word/name and Rheged. Cagwinn (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

Reverting the citation of an Oxford University study as "pure nonsense" does not seem reasonable. It is probably controversial, but should not be dismissed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It is nonsense, because a) we don't even know the borders of Rheged and b) the study makes use of modern DNA, which is practically worthless when discussing early medieval populations. Cagwinn (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which I have some sympthy with, but our personal opinions are not a reason for reverting citation of a source which meets Wikipedia criteria for reliablilty. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not simply my opinion, but a fact; no one today know what the borders of Rheged were. It is also a fact the modern DNA tells us very little about early medieval populations, no less the borders of the kingdoms that they lived in! The study mentioned in the reverted passage, like most whose historical analyses are based on samples of modern DNA, is highly questionable. Cagwinn (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the study referred to is this Nature paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230 - Nature volume 519, pages 309–314 (19 March 2015). The abstract:

"Fine-scale genetic variation between human populations is interesting as a signature of historical demographic events and because of its potential for confounding disease studies. We use haplotype-based statistical methods to analyse genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data from a carefully chosen geographically diverse sample of 2,039 individuals from the United Kingdom. This reveals a rich and detailed pattern of genetic differentiation with remarkable concordance between genetic clusters and geography. The regional genetic differentiation and differing patterns of shared ancestry with 6,209 individuals from across Europe carry clear signals of historical demographic events. We estimate the genetic contribution to southeastern England from Anglo-Saxon migrations to be under half, and identify the regions not carrying genetic material from these migrations. We suggest significant pre-Roman but post-Mesolithic movement into southeastern England from continental Europe, and show that in non-Saxon parts of the United Kingdom, there exist genetically differentiated subgroups rather than a general ‘Celtic’ population."

One of its findings was that, amongst others, there were genetically distinct populations in Cumbria and West Yorkshire. These, plus others in Cornwall, Devon, Northumberland and the Welsh borders, were sufficiently distinct from the rather homogeneous markers found in the rest of England. Incidentally the populations of North and South Wales were found to be distinct from each other. Speaking as a geneticist the results are interesting, but whether the distinctiveness of the Cumbrian gene-pool is relevant to Rheged, well that depends on how Rheged is perceived. Inherently a Nature paper is not "pure nonsense".

Whilst pre- and post-Black Death populations in Britain are probably somewhat dissimilar, modern population genetics are considered as acceptable indicators of pre-Modern population structures and events. Ancient DNA work on preserved human remains has quite often corroborated modern DNA findings and studies often combine both approaches. Urselius (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything you said is completely irrelevant! We can not determine the borders of a poorly-attested, likely short-lived, early medieval British kingdom from a DNA test of modern populations. I mean, it's absolutely an idiotic suggestion! Cagwinn (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Stating that something is a fact without citing reliable sources is not a valid wiki argument. I think we have to re-revert and if you can find RSs for your views you can add them. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, you've got to be kidding!! How about YOU provide a reliable, non-speculative source that shows us what the borders of Rheged were? I'll wait here. Cagwinn (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are on my turf now. Let us see, we can certainly say that Rheged was in the 'Old North', therefore it was in what is now Northern England and Southern Scotland. We can also say where Rheged was not, and we can assign reasonably firm evidence of where these 'not areas' were. Rheged was not: Alclud, Manau, Bernicia, Deira, York, Dent, Catterick, and Elmet. This leaves a geographical lacuna which must contain Rheged, consisting of Dumfries and Galloway, Cumbria, the Yorkshire Dales and traditional Lancashire (County Palatine of Lancaster). By a logical process Rheged must have included part or all of this area. Urselius (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

How do you know we can "certainly say" this? Provide proof (and only cite reliable sources please). Cagwinn (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It is called logic, try it sometime, logic does not need specific citation. We know definitively, because all the literature says so (look at all the literature if you wish), that Rheged was not outside the island of Britain, the sources also say that it was in the Hen Ogledd. We also know where within the Hen Ogledd many post-Roman tribal/political entities were geographically (we know where York is and was for instance), logic requires that Rheged is in that part of northern Britain not covered by other known polities. Fairly straightforward really. Have I lost you anywhere in this? According to Koch in his encyclopaedia the best evidence is the Gorhoffedd of Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd, which places Carlisle in Cumbria within Rheged.

Ha, that's a rather elaborate and verbose way of admitting that you have no sources (neither primary, nor secondary)! A mid-late 12th century poem is not very strong evidence. Of course, you leave out the part where Koch states, "Assuming that Hywel is well informed, this nonetheless leaves the extent of Rheged open. So closely identified with Urien is Rheged, and so prominent among his lands, that some modern scholars have assumed that it must have been a large area, extending over the Pennine watershed to include Catraeth and/or westward to Aeron (probably Ayrshire in Scotland/Alba) and/or down into modern Lancashire, all of which is possible, but uncertain. Whether Rheged directly continued the old tribal lands of the Brigantes, the Carvetii, or another pre-Roman tribe and Romano-British civitas is also unclear." Anyway, this is what the poem states: "Lord of Heaven and Earth, King of the men of Gwynedd, how far from Kerry [Ceri, north Wales] is Carlisle! I rode a bay horse from Maelienydd [east-central Wales] as far as the land of Rheged both night and day" (Arglwydd nef a llawr, gwawr Gwyndodydd. Mor bell o Geri Gaerllywelydd! Esgynnais ar felyn o Faelienydd. Hyd yn nhir Rheged rhwng nos a dydd. [ed. Ann Parry Owen]). Medieval Welshmen knew that Rheged was north of Wales, but it is unlikely that they still knew its specific borders. Cagwinn (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, logic does not require citation to support a proposition. If there are locations ABCDEFG, and we know that something is within in these locations, and we know that it isn't in A or B or C or D, then logic demands that it is in E, F or G. It is a simple enough concept. Urselius (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're just bloviating. Provide accurate sources, or keep quiet. No one here requires - or desires - a lecture from you on logic. Cagwinn (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You are merely seeking to obnubilate obvious facts and logic with pure sophistry. Urselius (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You really need to get a life. Cagwinn (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

One that is free of selective cherry-picking from sources and free from deliberately ignoring the conclusions of authors when they go against my particular point of view? That sort of life? Urselius (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Cagwinn is correct that there's no telling what the borders of Rheged were. But it likely included parts of Cumbria, as Carlisle is usually thought to have been in Rheged. It's also quite possible that Rheged evolved from an older tribal entity such as the Carvetii, as other early medieval British kingdoms did. In general, this map does show the "Cumbrian" cluster to be in the general area where Rheged is thought to have been. And it would certainly be notable if population genetics suggest that people from the area today may have ancestry going all the way back then. It could be rephrased a bit, but it sounds like this material should be restored.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus here to restore the material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the website cited in the material that was reverted? For their map (Fig. 2) of the kingdoms they cite/link to the Wikipedia articles on Rheged, Elmet and Bernicia - kind of crazy, since two of these articles specifically note that we don't know the exact boundaries! Cagwinn (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

They do not cite Wikipedia articles but link to them for further information, as they do with the Picts. They judge that the borders are well known enough to make their conclusions valid, and it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide that an Oxford University study is nonsense. I agree with Cuchullain that there is a consensus to restore. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I looked at the map. It does show basically the area Rheged is usually thought to have been. Cagwinn, have you read The Lost Dark Age Kingdom of Rheged: the Discovery of a Royal Stronghold at Trusty's Hill, Galloway? It gives a good overview of where Rheged may have been based on archaeology, toponymy, history and literature. It argues for a center more in Dumfries-Galloway than Cumbria but it's got some great, very compelling info.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to read it, but have heard the opinions from a few scholars who have and they didn't seem very convinced by it. By the way, I tracked down the primary source cited by the Nature study for the early medieval kingdoms: Barry Cunliffe, Britain Begins, OUP Oxford, 2013. I don't have the book, but took a peek on Google; Rheged seems to mentioned only once in the book (p. 450; no discussion of its borders) and appears on one map, without borders (p. 452), which I took a screengrab of and have posted to imgur for reference. Cagwinn (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)